Sitting of 20 June 1951

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

  CYPRUS (PORTS)
  Mr. J. N. Browneasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has been made regarding the improvement of the port of Limassol.
  The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Dugdale): Yes, Sir. After full consultation with the local interests concerned it has been decided to accept the plan for harbour improvements put forward in a recent report by the consulting engineers, subject to one agreed addition. It is expected that preliminary work will start almost immediately.
  Mr. Browne: Is the Minister aware that the people of Cyprus—and, indeed, of the whole Commonwealth and Empire—will be very glad to hear this, and in view of the dangerous situation that may arise over Russia or Persia, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this work should be pushed on with the greatest possible speed?
  Air Commodore Harvey: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect this work to be completed?
  Mr. Dugdale: I could not say in advance, but it will be pushed on with every possible expedition.
  Mr. Browneasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now investigated the harbour facilities at Famagusta; and what action he proposes to take.
  Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has now been advised by the Governor that the harbour facilities at Famagusta are adequate for civilian needs
  488
  and that the rate of loading and discharging vessels compares very favourably with that in other ports of similar size in the Eastern Mediterranean. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend does not consider any special action necessary.
  Mr. Browne: Will the Minister look at this again? Is he aware that this point was raised in the House on 28th February by myself, and has he read the article by Sefton Delmer, who is a skilled observer and whose views concur with those which I formed when I was there at Christmas time? Will the right hon. Gentleman please have another look at this matter because his answer is not satisfactory?
  Mr. Dugdale: This matter has been inquired into very carefully by a number of experts who have a knowledge of harbour facilities, and that is the conclusion they have come to.
  Mr. Driberg: In considering any developments at Famagusta, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the very great historical and architectural importance of many of its buildings, and will he take care to safeguard that aspect?
  Mr. Dugdale
  Commander Noble: The right hon. Gentleman said that the facilities were adequate for all civilian needs. Are they adequate for other possible needs?
  Mr. Dugdale: I understand that the local military authorities have made no representations to suggest that they are not adequate.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there was a large-scale military landing at Famagusta only a few days ago, and will this Government of planners keep in touch with the War Office and see whether any new lessons have been learnt?
  Mr. Dugdale: We have always been in touch with the War Office and with any other Ministry as necessary.

  UGANDA (HOTEL, ENTEBBE)
  Mr. Peter Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the hotel at Entebbe, built by the Uganda Government and now taken over and managed by the Colonial Development

  489
  Corporation, made a profit or a loss previously to being taken over; and what was the amount thereof.
  Mr. Dugdale: During the 12 months before the C.D.C. took over the hotel it made a net loss of £5,486. The C.D.C. took it over on 1st August, 1950.
  Mr. Beresford Craddock: Can the right hon. Gentleman say at what price the Colonial Development Corporation took over this hotel? Was it the actual cost price to the Uganda Government?
  Mr. Dugdale: I cannot say without notice.

  FALKLAND ISLANDS

    British Bases
    Captain Ryderasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many bases we now have in the Falkland Island Dependencies permanently manned; and what plans the Government have for the further exploration, survey and development of this territory during the next open season.
    Mr. Dugdale: There are at present four permanently manned British posts in the Dependencies, in addition to South Georgia, which is permanently inhabited and administered territory. Plans for the coming season will involve an increased scale of activity in these territories, but I cannot give details at this stage.
    Captain Ryder: Can the Minister say what administrative organisation exists in these Dependencies, and is he satisfied that it is adequate to maintain British rule in that area?
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir.
    Sir Herbert Williams: How many stations are manned by the Chileans and Argentinos who are trespassers there?
    Mr. Dugdale: That question had better be asked of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or the Chilean Government.
    Sir H. Williams: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not know who is in British Colonial Territories for which he is responsible?
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    Captain Ryder: How does the Minister of State reconcile his remark that he is satisfied with the administration there with his comment that he does not know how many foreigners are in the territory?
    Mr. Speaker: The Question asks not about the number of foreigners but about the number of bases we have in the Dependencies.
    Captain Ryder: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that my Question asks also about what developments are taking place?

    Chilean and Argentinian Personnel
    Mr. Fitzroy Macleanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the strength of the individual groups of Chilean and Argentinian personnel at present in illegal occupation of British territory in the Falkland Islands Dependencies in no case exceeds 12 men, and in most cases is smaller, he will take early administrative measures for the apprehension and removal of these persons as undesirable aliens.
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. The attitude of His Majesty's Government on this matter is set out in the reply given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 23rd April.
    Mr. Maclean: But does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to say that the local authorities are just neglecting their ordinary constitutional duties? Is he not facing up to that problem at all?
    Mr. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend said on 23rd April that it was the view of His Majesty's Government that the dispute should be settled through the International Court, and that remains our attitude.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would convey to his colleagues that possible weakness in this case may have led to more dangerous and arrogant presumptions elsewhere?
    Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that his predecessor informed me on 10th March. 1948, that there were one policeman and one or two Customs officers available to enforce the immigration regulations of the Dependencies, and

    491
    that these immigration regulations were available to deal with small bands of people? Could he say why nothing has been done since then?
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    Mr. Dugdale: I have nothing to add. The position has been made perfectly clear on a number of occasions.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Can the Minister say how long this situation is to be allowed to continue and, furthermore, what action he will take if other countries follow the precedent which has apparently been allowed to be established by those two countries, Argentina and Chile?
    Mr. Dugdale: That is hypothetical and not a question I can answer.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    E.C.A. Assistance
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to make known to the peoples of the Colonial Empire the generous help which is being given by the United States of America under the Economic Co-operation Administration.
    Mr. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend knows of no case where a Colonial Government in receipt of E.C.A. assistance has not gladly given publicity to this fact. I would also refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 462 to 465 of the Report which my right hon. Friend recently presented to Parliament (Command 8243).
    Mr. Gammans: Do the Government propose to put any sort of plaque on this project so that we may know what generous help we have had from the United States and what a wonderful example this is of international co-operation in developing backward areas?
    Mr. Dugdale: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very fully aware of that and are exceedingly grateful for all the help we have had from the United States.
    Mr. James Johnson: While we are thanking the American Government for the help that they have given to this country, will my right hon. Friend take care not to lose sight of the help that this country has given to the Colonial Empire,
    492
    particularly since His Majesty's present Government came into power?
    Mr. Dugdale: I have no doubt that the American Government will consider that one of the best forms of thanking them is that there should be some self help, and that is what we have in this connection.

    Immigrants (Accommodation, U.K.)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in providing accommodation for colonial peoples other than, students in London and provincial cities; and what is the estimated present monthly number of entrants of colonial workers into this country.
    Mr. Dugdale: On arrival in this country migrants who lack accommodation and funds are looked after by the L.C.C. in London and the local authorities in the provinces. No special accommodation is provided for colonial migrants. No statistics are available of the numbers of migrant colonial workers, but it is estimated that over 1,000 a year are arriving to seek work.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that this problem is becoming increasingly acute and grave in many parts of the country, and that it is spreading to some of the southern suburbs? In the circumstances, does he not think that it is time that special inquiries were made to see what can be done both to control the influx of young men and to provide them with decent accommodation?
    Mr. Dugdale: We are concerned to see that proper accommodation is provided and that these people do get adequate protection. I think the present system is providing them with a reasonable amount of accommodation.
    Mr. Somerville Hastings: Is my right hon. Friend aware how hard put the L.C.C. are to find accommodation for these people, who arrive sometimes in large numbers with wives and families without any notice at all and have to be accommodated?
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir, I am aware of it.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in connection with this problem a difficult situation has

    493
    arisen in Brixton and that the Lambeth Borough Council are going to make representations to him which I hope he will receive with sympathetic and favourable consideration?
    Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman travel a little beyond Brixton to Croydon, where a large number of these people are accommodated in the International Language Club?
    Mr. Dugdale: It seems that I shall do a lot of travelling.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that the colonial peoples to whom reference is made come here as wayfarers or stowaways and often have no work to go to at all?

    Corporal Punishment
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in respect of the abolition of corporal punishment as a sanction imposed by courts in the Colonies.
    Mr. Dugdale: Since my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend's Question on this subject on 31st January three Colonial Governments have appointed committees to consider the question of corporal punishment, while a fourth intends to take similar action.
    Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that in these cases corporal punishment has been abolished altogether except for attack on warders in prison?
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. All that has happened is that committees have been set up to inquire into the matter.
    Mr. Sorensen: How long is it likely to be before the committees issue their reports and the Government can take some action?
    Mr. Baldwin: In view of the increasing crime in Colonies where corporal punishment has been abolished, will the Minister say what deterrent steps are to be taken in place of corporal punishment?
    Mr. Dugdale: I do not intend to get involved in the efficacy or otherwise of corporal punishment in reply to a question.

    Students, United Kingdom (Assistance)
    Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many students have availed themselves of the facilities
    494
    which exist for providing financial assistance in the case of illness or other misfortune; and on what basis students become eligible for this assistance.
    Mr. Dugdale: Expenses of illness and convalescence can normally be met without undue difficulty through the National Health Scheme. Thirteen students have, however, been helped to the extent of £147 while in hospital or undergoing convalescence or suffering from some other misfortune. Any student is eligible for such assistance in special emergencies where no other source of help is available.
    Mr. Alport: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he means by "any students" those who come over privately as well as those who come over sponsored by colonial governments?
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir.

    Raw Materials
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to secure the maximum contribution from the Colonial Territories of raw materials in scarce supply.
    Mr. Dugdale: Colonial Governments are fully aware of the raw materials situation, and, where necessary, His Majesty's Government are willing to help them to secure additional finance, capital equipment or labour required for increased production. Production is also encouraged by the offer of long term contracts by U.K. Government purchasing agencies where that appears desirable.
    Sir I. Fraser: Did the Colonial Office make strong representations at the Torquay Conference in favour of Imperial Preference, which enriches both the Colonies and the Mother country?
    Mr. Dugdale: That seems to me to be quite another question.

    Military Manpower
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the military manpower contribution of the Colonial Empire to the collective defences of the democracies.
    Mr. Dugdale: I can add nothing to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and myself in the debate on 16th March last.

    495
    Colonial Territories make a substantial contribution in manpower towards collective defence by their assumption of responsibility for their own internal security. Forces maintained for that purpose are capable of expansion in war, and of mutual reinforcement in emergencies.
    Sir I. Fraser: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever seen the K.A.Rs. or, for example, the Basutoland contingent on the job in a war, and does he realise how valuable these men are, how they enjoy military service, and how much we need them?
    Mr. Dngdale: Certainly I am fully aware of their value.
    Mr. Paget: Has my right hon. Friend taken any further steps with regard to providing facilities for ex-R.A.F. personnel in Jamaica to re-join?
    Mr. Dugdale: That is another Question which I cannot answer without notice.
    Mr. Gammans: Is not the Minister aware that in the statement to which he refers that was made by his right hon. Friend it was promised that much more attention would be paid to this matter and that a more comprehensive report on the possibilities of colonial manpower for the common defence of the Empire would be given? Has he any further statement to make other than the one he has now made?
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. It has been stated that my right hon. Friend is undertaking a detailed examination of the possibility of making extended use of African troops.

  WEST INDIES

    St. Lucia (Conditions)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the representations from the Deputy Chairman of the Town Council of Vieux-Fort, St. Lucia, forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Maldon, concerning the destitution and unemployment caused by the collapse of the sugar industry in that district; what compensation, rent or other payment was received on account of the former United States base, whose presence led to this collapse; and what steps are being taken to provide money, work and other help for those in want.
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the present difficulties of the people of Vieux-Fort. I cannot say, without reference to the Governor, what was the total amount of compensation paid to owners of land on account of the United States base. This base brought considerable prosperity to the area; and, as its activity decreased, substantial sums were provided both by the local government and under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act for resettlement schemes. Further measures are plainly needed to help this area, but they must await the report of the team of experts who have recently visited the island to investigate means of expanding agricultural production I am asking the Governor to speed things up.
    Mr. Driberg: When my right hon. Friend says that further help is plainly needed but that we must await the report of the experts, may I ask him what is being done about the urgent plight of the people concerned? Is any form of relief being provided?
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir, there is no form of unemployment relief there; but I must say that the people there had rather unexpected prosperity during the time that the Americans base was there.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition have also received a communication from this island and are deeply anxious for its welfare? Pending inquiries, would it not be very unfortunate if the impression got about that the United States, in some sinister way, are responsible for the present destitution?
    Mr. Dugdale: I should like to make it clear that they are not.
    Mr. P. Smithers: In view of the reports reaching us about the unsatisfactory conditions on St. Lucia, could the right hon. Gentleman say when the affairs of the island last came before him? If they have not done so for some time, will he have them looked into?
    Mr. Dugdale: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they come before me and my right hon. Friend on very frequent occasions.

    Co-operatives
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Government of Trinidad has not yet provided for the registration of co-operatives.
    Mr. Dugdale: Provision already exists in Trinidad for the registration of agricultural co-operative societies and agricultural credit societies. I understand that the Government of Trinidad hopes to introduce shortly comprehensive legislation providing for the registration of all forms of co-operatives.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend making it clear that the Governor proposes to reform the existing law?
    Mr. Dugdale: The Governor himself cannot alter the law, but it is in fact intended to introduce comprehensive legislation.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why there are not yet any registered co-operatives in Barbados; and what is being done to promote the setting up of co-operatives, particularly consumers' co-operatives to supply farmers.
    Mr. Dugdale: Legislation providing for the registration of co-operative societies has been enacted but has not yet been brought into force. My right hon. Friend is asking the Governor for a report on the position.

  MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

    Newspaper (Licence Withdrawal)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the licence of the Malay daily newspaper, "Melayu Raga," which is supported by Malay peasants, was withdrawn and the paper closed down in January; who were the proprietors; and what evidence there is against the newspaper.
    Mr. Dugdale: The licence was withdrawn because of the systematic publication by the "Melayu Raya" of material concerning the Hertogh case of a nature likely to foster religious and racial antagonism. Repeated warnings to the newspaper had had no effect. The managing director of the "Melayu Raya" Press is Mr. Harun bin Mohamed Amin.

    Military Service
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many men called up for military service in Malaya are, owing to residence or other disqualification, regarded as aliens; and if he will
    498
    encourage these persons by giving them an assurance of full Federation citizenship after completing such service.
    Mr. Dugdale: I regret that the information requested in the first part of the Question is not available. The call up is for police and the civilian service, not military service. The assurance suggested cannot be given at the present time.
    Mr. Awbery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of these men have preferred to go to China rather than fight for a government which refuses to grant them full citizenship? Will he take steps to see that they are promised this recognition?
    Mr. Dugdale: All I am saying is that we cannot give special consideration to them over and above other people who may have joined the Home Guard and the Civil Defence Services.

    Rice Ration
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what price, in English currency, is charged for Siamese rice sold on the ration in Hong Kong and Malaya; and what is the weekly ration of rice in Hong Kong, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya.
    Mr. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend is obtaining the information in reply to the first part of the Question from the three governments and will send it to my hon. Friend as soon as it is received. The weekly rice ration is: Hong Kong, 67¼ ounces; Singapore, 79 ounces; Federation of Malaya, 77¾ ounces.
    Mr. Awbery: In view of the fact that rice can be bought on the black market in any quantity, will not the Minister endeavour to increase the ration of rice in Malaya and Singapore?
    Mr. Dugdale: That is a matter for the Malayan Government.

  EAST AFRICA (POPULATION STATISTICS)
  Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what information the estimated increase in the population of East African territories of 2½ to 5 per cent. per annum is based; what estimate has been arrived at by the East

  499
  African statistical department; and if he will explain the reason for the discrepancy.
  Mr. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend is communicating with the East African authorities and will write to my hon. Friend when he has received their reply.
  Mr. Alport: Cannot something be done to provide a reliable basis for these statistics?
  Mr. Dugdale: As the hon. Gentleman realises, it is not altogether an easy task to make such a calculation, but I think that it would be made as early as possible.
  Mr. Alport: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State used the figures referred to in the Question in the course of a statement during his visit to East Africa recently in spite of their lack of authenticity?

  NIGERIA (KALAHARI TRIBE)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Kalabaries were recently charged with complicity in murder and how many were acquitted; whether the £20,000 fine has been paid in full; and whether, in respect of similar heavy collective fines in the future, he will consider making part of this repayable on condition that no further serious crimes were committed over a long period or that, if they were, the culprits were handed over to justice by the villagers among whom the culprits had lived.
  Mr. Dugdale: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 2nd May. The fine was paid in full on 4th June. The Governor has power to return the whole or part of a collective fine if those who have paid it have kept the peace and been of good behaviour for such period as he may determine.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that he has not answered the last sentence of my Question? Could he give an observation on that? Do I understand that the Minister cannot reply to that point?
  Mr. Dugdale: I think I have replied to the Question perfectly adequately.

  GOLD COAST

    Deposed Chiefs
    Mr. G. P. Stevensasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many chiefs have recently been de-stooled in the Gold Coast; and how this number compares with the previous comparable period.
    Mr. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend has asked the Gold Coast Government to provide this information and will write to the hon. Member when it has been received.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the Minister tell the House whether the word "de-stooled" has any official significance? Is it the process recently followed by three ex-Ministers?

    Empire Day Celebration
    Mr. Stevensasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the ceremonial celebration of Empire Day in the Gold Coast was not held this year.
    Mr. Dugdale: The hon. Member is misinformed. Empire Day was in fact celebrated in the Gold Coast, as a public holiday and the officer administering the Government broadcast a message which was transmitted or read to all schools. It was, however, decided to discontinue the parades of school children which have taken place in previous years.
    Mr. Stevens: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a substantial difference between the ceremonial celebration of Empire Day and the type of celebration which was in fact carried out?
    Mr. Dugdale: I am satisfied that the Gold Coast Government hold the view, which has already been stated publicly by Mr. Nkrumah, that they intend to remain in the Commonwealth. That being so, they would naturally celebrate Empire Day in a fit and proper way as members of the Commonwealth.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Ammunition Explosions
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) what information he has about the origin of the

    501
    ammunition that exploded at the Royal Naval Ordnance Depot, Bedenham, Gosport, on board the naval ammunition ship "Bedenham," at Gibraltar, and on board the ammunition ship "Indian Enterprise" in the Indian Ocean, respectively; and what progress has been made towards the joint and several solutions of these crimes of sabotage;
    (2) what have been the findings of the inquiry into the ammunition explosion at the Bedenham Ordnance Depot in Portsmouth Harbour last summer.
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has now any further statement to make on the circumstances of the explosion which took place on board of ammunition ship "Bedenham" at Gibraltar.
    Captain Ryderasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether an inquiry into the causes of the explosion which occurred in the ammunition ship "Bedenham" on 27th April has now been held; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gammansasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the causes of the explosion in Gibraltar.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): The explosions at Gosport and at Gibraltar originated in naval depth charges which were filled at the Royal Ordnance Factory, Glascoed. There were no naval depth charges on board the s.s. "Indian Enterprise" and the naval ammunition on board this vessel was supplied from various naval armament depots.
    Statements were made concerning the Gosport explosion by the Prime Minister on 24th July, and subsequently made by me on 19th September, 18th October and 25th October; no further evidence has yet come to light concerning this explosion.
    The conclusions which the Admiralty have reached following the naval Board of Inquiry which considered the explosion at Gibraltar on 27th April, are that a fire arose from a mild explosion in a depth charge whilst the depth charge was being man-handled into position: it is
    502
    not certain whether the explosion occurred in the depth charge which was being handled at that moment or in one adjacent to it. The fire developed with extreme rapidity, leading to a general conflagration and major explosion. Whilst it has not yet been possible to determine the cause of the initial fire and explosion, there is no evidence to suggest that sabotage was the cause. Technical investigations into the explosive fillings are proceeding.
    The assumption that the explosion in the S.S. "Indian Enterprise" was due to sabotage is not justified by the evidence at present available.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is it or is it not the opinion of the Admiralty that the explosion in the shipyard at Bedenham and the explosion in the ammunition ship "Bedenham" were initiated on almost identical lines and that if it was sabotage in one case it was likely also to be sabotage in the other?
    Mr. Edwards: The opinion of the Admiralty has been explained in the statements which have been made from time to time.
    Mrs. Middleton: Can my hon. Friend give an explicit assurance that the trouble connected with the ship did not arise while it was being loaded at Bullpoint, Plymouth?
    Mr. Edwards: From the evidence which we have before us at the moment there is no suggestion of sabotage at Bullpoint.
    Captain Ryder: Are we to understand that the explosions were caused by the same lot number of depth charges? Have the rest of the lot number been withdrawn from service?
    Mr. Edwards: I am afraid that I cannot give specific information with regard to the lot number, but that type of depth charge has now been taken out of service while the examination is proceeding.
    Mr. Gammans: If the hon. Member denies that any of the occurrences were due to sabotage, can he explain why it is that we seem to have so many more of them than we had before the war?
    Mr. Edwards: The reason why this case is considered not to be due to sabotage is because of the evidence which the Board of Inquiry has considered and the conclusions which have been reached.

    H.M. Submarine "Affray" (Loss)
    Captain Ryderasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when it is proposed holding an inquiry into the loss of His Majesty's Submarine "Affray"; and what form that inquiry will take.
    Commander Maitlandasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the recent discovery of H.M.S. "Affray" has thrown any light on the reason for the disaster; and if he will make a further statement.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he has any further information in regard to H.M. Submarine "Affray."
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): I would refer the hon. and gallant Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) on 18th June.
    Captain Ryder: Does it not appear from the meagre evidence which is available that the design of the Snort apparatus is under some doubt? Should it not be a cardinal feature of this instrument that it should break off when under undue stress at some point which will not lead to the scuppering of the ship? Will the hon. Gentleman say whether investigations to this end in other submarines in the Service are being made?
    Mr. Callaghan: Everything is in doubt for the moment, the Snort apparatus not more so than anything else. I think it would be quite possible to advance alternative reasons for the gash which has been found in the Snort apparatus and I should not like to come to a conclusion about it until the Naval Board of Inquiry has examined further evidence.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: May I take the opportunity on this first occasion of expressing the gratitude and admiration of myself and of other hon. Members for the determination and bravery with which the search has been carried out? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
    I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman three questions which I hope will not
    504
    be considered sub judice. First, in a submarine such as this, in the event of damage to the Snort apparatus of a kind which makes it admit water instead of air, can the right hon. Gentleman say how many seconds would elapse before the diesels had drawn out so much of the submarine's air as to reduce the pressure until the men lost consciousness? Does not this occur in 10 to 15 seconds?
    Secondly, is it likely that, once it had begun to lose buoyancy, the submarine could have gone into a long uncontrolled glide which could have taken it so very far from the area where it was originally expected to appear? Thirdly, can the hon. Gentleman say whether or not the submarine's radar mast was extended?
    Mr. Callaghan: The whole of the searching forces will be glad to hear what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said with the assent of the House. I think that the finding of the submarine was a most remarkable feat considering the conditions in which the search had to be conducted.
    The answer to his first supplementary question is that the air would certainly not be exhausted within such a short period of time that it would be impossible to switch off the motors. There is a great deal of technical evidence about this into which I do not wish to go. His second and third supplementary questions are matters of judgment rather than of fact, and it would be advisable to postpone theorising about them until we have heard what the Board of Inquiry has to say.
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will make a statement about the salvage of the submarine "Affray."
    Mr. Callaghan: Not yet, Sir. When diving is resumed on 25th June, the main purpose will be to find out more about the condition of the submarine in order to determine, if possible, the cause of the disaster. The question of salvage which would require a major effort extending over many months, will be determined later.
    Sir I. Fraser: As the question of whether to salvage the vessel will depend upon an opinion as to the technical difficulty and upon the cost, will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the Admiralty would regard almost any technical difficulty and almost any cost as worth while to elucidate this mystery?
    Mr. Callaghan: Let us take the matter a step at a time. The first thing, which we have not yet exhausted by any means, is to find out the cause. If we can do so as the vessel now lies, so much the better.
    Mr. Churchill: Apart from these extremely important moral and scientific issues, what is the actual cost of a submarine of this type?
    Mr. Callaghan: In round figures, I would say £1 million.
    Mr. Churchill: So that a certain amount of expense would be justified merely from that point of view of endeavouring to recover it?
    Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman will know better than I that a number of things have to be weighed against that. The effort that would have to be put into a job of salving a submarine from this depth would divert training, and a number of other efforts which would be involved are also factors to be borne in mind. No decision has been reached yet, but I think one is at least entitled to put these facts into the balance if we are to consider the bare arithmetic of the matter.
    Mr. Churchill: If the "Affray" were salvaged, apart from all other considerations, it could very quickly be made ready for service again, and that, as the hon. Gentleman said, would replace a vessel which would otherwise cost £1 million. I should have thought myself that it was a little more than £1 million.
    Mr. Callaghan: That may well be so—I have not looked it up. I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but all these things have to be taken into account. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that when the decision is made, it will not have been made except on the basis of what is best for the Service as a whole.
    Mr. Churchill: I am not so sure. Would it not be a great feather in the cap of the Admiralty if they achieved the great process of salving this vessel?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, it would be something that had never before been done in tidal waters of this sort in the history of submarine salvage. I am all for getting feathers in one's cap, but we have to make a realistic appreciation of these
    506
    matters, and that is what the Admiralty will do.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Will the Admiralty expedite their decision in order that the salvage work, if it is decided upon, shall be taken as far as possible before the weather breaks up for the winter?
    Mr. Callaghan: The first advice, I gather, is that there is very little prospect indeed that we would be able to raise the submarine before the autumn storms.

    Dockyard, Chatham (Working Hours)
    Mr. Burdenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that yard craft engineers in Chatham dockyard are working many hours in excess of the 55 hours which comprise a normal working week; and if he will institute a system of overtime payment for each hour in excess of 55 worked each week.
    Mr. W. Edwards: Discussions have been proceeding for several months past with the representative organisations concerned about the basis for calculating overtime payments for yard craft officers. These negotiations have proved difficult; but they will be concluded as soon as possible and arrears due under the settlement will, of course, be paid.
    Mr. Burden: While welcoming that statement from the hon. Gentleman, may I ask him to take steps to ensure that these negotiations are hurried as much as possible, because there is considerable dissatisfaction about this matter in the yard at the moment?
    Mr. Edwards: We are trying to do all that we possibly can, but unfortunately the organisations which are representing the men do not agree among themselves.
    Mr. McCorquodale: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that it is generally regarded as most inefficient practice to ask men to continue to work these very long hours?
    Mr. Edwards: These "very long hours" were 66 hours a week when I took office. Now these men are paid for 55 hours even if they do not complete the 55 hours.
    Mr. Borden: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in some cases these men are now working 85 hours a week?
    Mr. Edwards: There might be a few such cases, but these men are glad to be paid overtime for the hours over 55 hours a week. Previously, they were paid overtime only after 66 hours a week.
    Mr. McCorquodale: I asked if it did not mean inefficiency for these men to work such long hours. Would it not be better for them to work shorter hours?
    Mr. Edwards: I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman understands the duty of yard craft engineers. In many cases these men are undertaking duties in connection with the yard craft service which mean that they spend a long time standing about, for which period they are paid.
    Sir H. Williams: Has the hon. Gentle-man read one of the Reports of the Select Committee on Expenditure during the war which showed how undesirable it was to have men working long hours?
    Mr. Edwards: I have certainly given attention to that Report, and that is the reason why the hours of employment of the men have been reduced since I have been in office.

    Civilian's Death (Compensation)
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on what grounds he has refused to make an ex-gratia payment of compensation to the widow of a retired farmer, Mrs. Lindsay, Stonehaven, whose husband was killed by a naval aircraft in November, 1944.
    Mr. Callaghan: I understand that Mrs. Lindsay did not qualify for compensation from the Ministry of Pensions under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme. I regret that I cannot single out Mrs. Lindsay for more favourable treatment than others similarly ineligible under the Scheme.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is it not true to say that this unfortunate widow would have been entitled to compensation had this accident occurred before the war, after the war, or during the war, if her
    508
    husband had not retired, but that since he had retired and the accident occurred during the war she is debarred from receiving compensation? If that is the case, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a strong moral obligation upon the Admiralty to be generous in this case?
    Mr. Callaghan: That succinct summary of the situation is absolutely correct, but the Act was placed upon the Statute Book by the House and I can only assume that the House had good reason for knowing why it adopted this practice in 1941.

    Unclaimed Prize Money
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will consider distributing any unclaimed naval prize money to naval personnel who were taken prisoner prior to completing the necessary time at sea to qualify for prize money.
    Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to his Question on 25th October last.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does the Parliamentary Secretary recollect that a small number of naval personnel in submarines were taken prisoner during the early days of the war and are not entitled to any Atlantic Star or gratuity and that this is an excellent opportunity to give them some of the money which everybody agrees is due to them?
    Mr. Callaghan: I recollect it well, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that it would need a new Act. This matter was considered when the last Act leading to the Royal Proclamation was before the House.
    Commander Noble: Is there any undistributed prize money?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir, about £600,000 or £700,000.

    Extended Service Bounties
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what decision he has now reached regarding the payment of bounties or gratuities to ratings who extended their service immediately prior to 1st September, 1950.
    Mr. Callaghan: I am afraid that there are serious difficulties in the way of reopening this question and that no decision has been reached.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does not the Minister realise that his reply will cause great disappointment at Portsmouth and other naval ports?

    Dockyard Workers (Establishment)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if workers in His Majesty's Dockyards will now be able to qualify for established posts up to the age of 65 years.
    Mr. W. Edwards: No, Sir. The current agreement made by the Joint Coordinating Committee for Government Industrial Establishments provides that men may not be nominated for establishment after their sixtieth birthday.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does the Minister realise that this is not in accordance with the Government's plan to keep men in employment? Should not the Admiralty, as a Government Department, set an example in allowing people to serve up to the age of 65, which is what they are encouraging private employers to do?
    Mr. Edwards: This has nothing to do with the Government's plan for keeping people in employment. Being on the establishment means that a man will get a pension when he leaves the Service rather than a gratuity as a result of the number of years service which he has given to the Admiralty. Established and non-established men can still work until the age of 65 if they so desire. I should like to point out that the age limit in this case has been raised to 60 from 50 since 1945.

    Cadet Officers (Uniforms)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the cost of a uniform for an officer of the Sea Cadet Corps; and for how many years are such uniforms assumed to continue satisfactory and suitable for use.
    Mr. Callaghan: About £38, towards which the officer receives a cash grant of £27. In addition, some other items of uniform are issued from Service stocks free of charge. The life of a uniform varies with the care an officer takes of it and the duties he performs.
    Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that there are something like 500 Sea Cadet Corps officers who have been in the Service from six to nine years, whose uniforms are worn out and who are entitled to an allowance of only about £3 in 1952? How does he expect them to preserve a decent appearance and to inspire the young cadets?
    Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that these terms are at all easy. The hon. Member should note that the allowance of £3 a year is tax free. I do not think that a Sea Cadet officer would wear out his uniform, unless his girth increases, to such an extent that would take him much beyond the normal period of replacement.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is Purchase Tax included in the cost of the uniform?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, I believe it is.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Will the Sea Cadet Corps be brought within the scope of the inquiry promised yesterday between the Treasury and the Service Departments relating to the whole question of uniform allowances?
    Mr. Callaghan: If it is not included, I will try to work it so that it is.
    Mr. Bossom: Does not the Minister know that some of these men have been in the Service for nine years, and does he expect that a uniform that has been continually used for that length of time would be properly satisfactory for these officers? The Minister knows, as does everybody else, that this position is very unsatisfactory. Cannot he do anything to correct it?
    Mr. Callaghan: I have worn my uniform at this Box for 10 years, and nobody has commented adversely on it.

    Aircrew (Short Service Commissions)
    Mr. Pagetasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what opportunities are open to National Service men and others to obtain short service commissions in the Navy as pilots and observers.
    Mr. Callaghan: National Service men can at present apply to train in their National Service time for flying appointments in the Navy as pilots or observers. The Admiralty are now introducing a new scheme, which will become operative immediately, whereby these National

    511
    Service men win be able to volunteer during their training to transfer to a short service engagement which would extend their full-time service to four years. On transfer they will receive Regular rates of pay. All time after transfer, subject to their having been awarded their "wings," will count for gratuity at the rate of £175 per annum. We hope that there will be a good response to this new scheme from all young men to whom the unique opportunity of service at sea and in the air appeals.
    At the end of their four-year engagement, these officers may volunteer for another four years, all of which will count for gratuity at the same rate. During this period they may be considered for permanent commissions in the Navy.
    I should emphasise, of course, that this scheme is in addition to the existing arrangements whereby men between the ages of 17 years 4 months and 24 years may apply for a short service commission of eight years at Regular rates of pay with a gratuity on completion of £1,500. There will be similar opportunities for permanent commissions for these officers. These engagements carry varying periods of reserve liability, up to seven years.
    The shortage of aircrew is a most serious problem. In addition to permanent officers who specialise in flying, we shall now have two short service schemes—the new four-year scheme for National Service men, with the option to extend it to eight years: and the existing eight year scheme for all young men between the ages of 17 years 4 months and 24.
    Mr. Paget: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his statement, may I ask whether it is possible to give to people who are to be called up and who wish to enter for pilot and observer duties, priority in the call-up so that they can get into the Navy?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. Any National Service man who wants to enter the Navy and expresses a desire to fly is, subject to other conditions, automatically accepted. The pinch comes on those National Service men who do not wish to fly but who want to serve their National Service time in the Navy.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Will the new scheme permit the beginning of flying training at an extremely early
    512
    stage of a man's call-up, or will he have to do a certain amount of divisional and other work before he can get into the air?
    Mr. Callaghan: After 10 weeks' initial training he can carry on with his flying training.
    Commander Noble: While recognising the very great need for these pilots and airmen, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary's answer means that there is any extension of commissions for National Service men on a general basis other than in the air branch?
    Mr. Callaghan: No. My answer deals solely with the air branch.
    Commander Maitland: Will the Parliamentary Secretary ensure that his statement is fully appreciated by cadet corps and other sources of naval recruitment?
    Mr. Callaghan
    Commander Galbraith: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether an opportunity is now to be available to naval National Service men similar to the opportunities available to National Service men in the Royal Air Force, and are the rewards equally advantageous?
    Mr. Callaghan: I understand that the scheme is very closely allied to that which has just been started in the Royal Air Force.

    Naval Chaplains
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the total annual charge on public funds in respect of the pay of naval chaplains.
    Mr. Callaghan: One hundred and fifty thousand pounds.

  ARMED FORCES

    Korea (Enemy Equipment)
    Mr. Remnantasked the Minister of Defence what countries have manufactured the arms and equipment recently captured by British troops from the Chinese and North Korean armies.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): While we have plenty of information about the different types of equipment used by the Chinese Communist and

    513
    North Korean forces which has now fallen into our hands, I do not think it would be in the public interest to publish details. Much of the equipment was originally captured by the Chinese Communist forces from the Chinese Nationalist forces or from the United Nations forces themselves. The equipment is of miscellaneous origin and includes items of Japanese, Russian, American and German manufacture.
    Mr. Remnant: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the public are very interested, just as much as he is, in the sources of manufacture of this equipment, and that to enable them to come to some opinion, possibly in support of the right hon. Gentleman, they are entitled to be told the sources?
    Mr. Shinwell: It is a matter of importance in the first instance that we should study this matter before we disclose details to the public.
    Mr. Paget: Is not by far the largest proportion of these arms of American origin?
    Mr. Michael Astor: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how much postwar Russian equipment is involved?
    Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir.
    Colonel Ropner: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what consideration of public interest is involved in refusing to give these names?
    Mr. Shinwell: In our view it is not desirable to publish details of equipment which might enable the enemy to learn as much as we know about it.
    Mr. Eden: Surely the enemy, whatever their limitations of knowledge, must know what their equipment was?
    Mr. Shinwell: There is no reason why they should know what we know about it.

    Service Children (Education)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Defence whether he is willing to grant special assistance to Service parents who, through their liability to constant posting, suffer financial hardship in providing for the education of their children.
    Mr. Shinwell: The possibility of giving further help to Service parents is being examined.
    Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nine months ago the Minister of Education said that discussions were proceeding to reach a settlement on this matter, but that meanwhile the financial hardship is growing greater every week?
    Mr. Shinwell: Of course some provision is made for the children of Service men in these peculiar conditions.
    Brigadier Head: Is the Minister of Defence aware that some undertaking in this respect was given by his predecessor that he was examining the matter three years ago, but that no steps have been taken for three years and this delay is having a very adverse effect on contentment and recruiting?
    Mr. Shinwell: I would not go as far as the hon. and gallant Gentleman and say that it has had an adverse effect on recruiting, but it is a complicated matter and it is not easy to arrive at a decision.
    Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some Service stations receive no help at all and that it all depends on different local authorities? Will he put this matter right at an early date?

    Staff Talks, Singapore
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the recent staff talks which took place in Singapore.
    Mr. Shinwell: The talks took place in Singapore from 15th to 19th May and enabled the British Commanders-in-Chief in the Far East to have an exchange of views on defence problems in South-East Asia with military representatives of the U.S.A. and France. General de Lattre de Tassigny was the head of the French Delegation and Vice-Admiral Struble. United States Navy, was the head of the United States Delegation. Military observers from Australia and New Zealand attended the discussions.
    Governments were in no sense committed by these talks. They were, however, most useful and a report, which has been prepared as a result of them, is being studied.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the representatives from Australia and New

    515
    Zealand were given full facilities to state their point of view at this conference?
    Mr. Shinwell: They were not formally brought into the consultations, but they are being informed of what transpired.
    Commander Noble: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any such meeting has ever taken place before?
    Mr. Shinwell: I could not say.

    Supreme Commander, Mediterranean
    Lieut.-Commander R. H. Thompsonasked the Minister of Defence if he is now in a position to make a statement on the appointment of a Supreme Commander in the Mediterranean.
    Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir.
    Lieut.-Commander Thompson: In view of the threatening situation in the Near and Middle East and the importance of our communications in the Mediterranean area, does the right hon. Gentleman hope to speed up these negotiations and obtain a settlement as soon as possible?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am very conscious of the need for reaching a settlement on this very complicated question. We are doing all we can in that direction.
    Mr. Churchill: Are not matters moving forward while the right hon. Gentleman is unable to reach any decision, or present any comprehensive decision to the House? Has he noticed the appointment of the American Admiral Carney—a man, I may say, of the very highest reputation and quality in every way—to the command of the right wing of the naval wing of General Eisenhower's Atlantic Forces drawn up on the Continent, and does he know that this command goes even into the Persian Gulf and possibly into the Indian Ocean?
    Surely these are matters of great importance and it ought to be possible at least to keep the House informed on these matters of this serious and vital interest? May I say that I am in full sympathy, as I have said before, with the interests and intervention of the United States in the Mediterranean?
    Mr. Shinwell: All that has been done so far—and I regret that no more has
    516
    been done—is to complete the command organisation of General Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander in the West. The Northern flank has been fully organised in accordance with General Eisenhower's wishes and now the Southern flank has been completed. What remains to be done is to complete the command organisation in the Mediterranean. It is a very complicated question and many parties have to be consulted. We are pressing on with it and doing all we possibly can, but we cannot reach agreement unless other people agree with us.
    Mr. Churchill: Has any further step been taken on the question of whether there should be a Supreme Commander for the Atlantic, or whether there should be—
    Mr. Speaker: This Question deals with the Mediterranean, and not the Atlantic.
    Mr. Churchill: With very great respect, and bowing humbly to your decision on the point of order, may I be permitted to submit to you that there is a certain strategic connection between the two ideas which comes outside the ordinary principles of order? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Mr. Speaker is the judge of order, and if he calls me to order, I will sit down. Therefore, may I have an answer on this point?
    Mr. Shinwell: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Atlantic Command question has been settled.
    Mr. Churchill: Oh? By whom? We will see about that.

    North Atlantic Powers (Military Service)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Defence what consultations he is having with the member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with a view to ensuring uniformity in the systems of compulsory military service in force in those countries.
    Mr. Shinwell: A study of the systems of compulsory military service in force in the member countries is one of the many tasks at present being undertaken by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the statutory periods of whole-time military service in the North Atlantic Treaty countries.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that if the particulars he is going to circulate reveal a very great disparity between the systems in force he will continue his efforts to ensure a greater equality of sacrifice as between these countries?
    Mr. Shinwell: That, of course, is our purpose. There is no great disparity, but of course there is some.
    Following is the statement:

    STATUTORY PERIODS OF WHOLE-TIME MILITARY SERVICE IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY COUNTRIES

    United Kingdom

    …

    …

    24 months

    United Stales

    …

    …

    24 months

    France

    …

    …

    18 months

    Holland

    …

    …

    12–24 months

    (majority serve 18 months)

    Luxembourg

    …

    …

    12–15 months

    Belgium

    …

    …

    24 months

    Denmark

    …

    …

    12 months

    Norway

    …

    …

    12 months

    Portugal

    …

    …

    18–48 months

    Italy

    …

    …

    18 months

    (majority serve 15 months)

    Iceland

    …

    …

    None

    Canada

    …

    …

    None

    In certain countries the period varies between the Services. The figures are maxima and minima.

    Ex-Service Men (Housing)
    Mr. Ian Harveyasked the Minister of Defence what discussions he has had with the Minister of Local Government and Planning with regard to the housing claims of married men leaving the Services having regard to their lack of territorial qualifications.
    Mr. Shinwell: The Departments concerned are in constant touch on this subject. Housing authorities have been advised that it is the Government's aim that serving and ex-Service men with families should have all possible consideration. As regards men whose service involves separation from their families, the following formula has been recommended for application by local authorities:
    "Heads of families who, on national service grounds, are absent from their families on duty shall be counted as part of the family for the purpose of determining housing priority, but in allotting accommodation no provision shall necessarily be made for the head of the family unless his return home is imminent."
    Mr. Harvey: Does the Minister realise that many men coming out of the Forces find themselves quite unable to get accom-
    518
    modation because local authorities are not paying attention to the specific points he has raised? Will he take rather more vigorous steps to see that those points are brought home to local authorities?
    Mr. Shinwell: We have been pressing on with this. I have full sympathy with the claims of these men and their families and will do everything possible to help in this direction, but the hon. Member must remember that this is a matter primarily for the local authorities and we cannot compel them to do what we wish.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Although the right hon. Gentleman cannot use compulsion, is he aware that there are still local authorities who refuse to put the names of serving men on their housing lists because they lack residential qualification? If they are following the colours, how can they have residential qualification? Will he try to get the local authorities to reverse their decision?
    Mr. Shinwell: Fortunately, the number of these recalcitrant local authorities is few.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does my right hon. Friend realise that if we met the request of the Opposition it would mean more interference from Whitehall with local authorities?
    Mr. Shinwell: We have no desire to interfere with local authorities, but we must have regard to the legitimate and just claims of the Service men.
    Sir I. Fraser: In view of the change in Ministerial responsibility for housing from the Minister of Health to the Minister of Local Government and Planning, will the Minister of Defence represent to the Minister who is now in charge of housing that he should use his influence to revive the conception of a moderate and reasonable preference for serving and ex-Service men in the matter of housing?
    Mr. Shinwell: All things considered I am satisfied that my two right hon. Friends will do all they can. I have reason to believe that they are sympathetic.
    Mr. Bossom: Would the Minister be practical in this situation and get his right hon. Friend to give the local authorities the right to make provisions for these people?
    Mr. Shinwell: Local authorities have the right; they can do as they please.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that it would be for the convenience of the House if we had the business statement first and then the statement of the Foreign Secretary.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): A further Money Resolution is necessary in connection with certain new Clauses to be proposed to the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Bill now before a Standing Committee. I am informed that the consideration of new Clauses might be reached at the next Sitting of the Standing Committee on Thursday morning. Therefore, I hope that the House will be good enough to agree to the Money Resolution in Committee and on Report tonight.

PERSIA (ANGLO-IRANIAN OIL COMPANY)
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Herbert Morrison): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I desire to make the following statement.
In my statement to the House yesterday I mentioned briefly the demands with which the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company delegation to Teheran had been presented; and I promised to take an early opportunity to inform the House of the subsequent course of events.
When the Company's delegation met the Persian representatives yesterday evening, it made proposals which were designed not only to meet the Persian Government's present and urgent need for funds but also to indicate an arrangement which would maintain the efficiency of the industry and be consistent with the principle of nationalisation. The terms of the aide-mémoire in which these proposals were set out have been published, but it may be as well for me to summarise them here.
Briefly, the content of the aide-mémoire was:

(1) That the Company was prepared to place at the Persian Government's disposal £10 million as an advance against any sum which might become due to the Persian Government as a result of any eventual agreement, on
520
the understanding that the Persian Government would undertake not to interfere with the Company's operations while discussions were proceeding.

(2) That the Company would moreover pay to the Persian Government £3 million a month, from July onwards, during such time as might elapse until an agreement had been reached.

(3) That the Company proposed, as a possible basis for an agreement, that the Persian assets of the Company might be vested in a Persian National Oil Company and, in consideration of such vesting, the National Oil Company should grant the use of those assets to a new company to be established by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The new company would have a number of Persian directors on its board, and would operate on behalf of the Persian National Oil Company. At the same time, the distribution of oil products within Persia itself would be transferred to an entirely Persian-owned and operated company on favourable terms as regards the transfer of existing assets.

(4) As regards the Persian demand, made at the meeting on 14th June, that the Company should hand to the Persian Government the total proceeds, less expenses, from the sales of Persian oil, from which 25 per cent. would be deposited in a mutually agreed bank against any claims which the Company might prefer, this was not acceptable. The point was made that the delegation had gone to Teheran for discussions, and regarded it as unjustifiable that the Persian Government should put forward a demand of this kind before discussions had even started. Moreover, the delegation was confident that, when it had had opportunity to explain in more detail the complicated machinery of the Company's business, it would be plain to the Persian representatives that their demand would be neither commercially possible nor acceptable to any oil company.

It seems hardly necessary for me to expatiate on the Company's offer. Money for present needs is there, acceptance of the principle of nationalisation is there, and an obvious foundation for fruitful

521
partnership is there. His Majesty's Government are convinced that all fair-minded opinion will regard the Company's proposals as eminently reasonable.
Unhappily, however, the Persian delegates required only half an hour in which to arrive at a contrary opinion. They declared that the Company's proposals conflicted with the new Persian Nationalisation Law and expressed surprise that the Company's delegation should have found need to ask for a postponement of the meeting arranged for 17th June in order merely to formulate such proposals. The Persian delegates concluded by saying that they had no authority to deviate from the letter of the Nationalisation Law, and in consequence considered the discussions closed.
The leader of the Company's delegation thereupon replied that, even if the proposals were not consistent with the letter of the Law (which had never been agreed to by the Company) they were consistent with the principle of nationalisation and would undoubtedly fit in with a liberal interpretation of the law; that it was apparent that the Persian representatives were expecting complete capitulation to their demands without discussion; that he noted with regret the Persian decision to break off the talks; and that he was left with no alternative than to communicate that decision to London and ask for instructions.
His Majesty's Government have learnt of this development with concern not only for the future of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and the free world's supplies of oil but also for the future of Persia herself. In the area of the Company's concession the natural wealth of the region has been made available to the Persian people. Their labour, combined with the capital expenditure and the technical and organising skill of the Company's engineers and administrators, has built up a vast industry.
Thanks to this fruitful co-operation, the Persian Government have enjoyed a consistent and growing source of income, which the Company itself offered in 1948 greatly to increase. Thanks also to this industry, tens of thousands of Persian workers at present enjoy housing conditions, educational facilities and health and other social services on a scale which the working people of Persia enjoy in no other part of the country. These are facts
522
which are attested in the Report of the International Labour Office entitled "Labour Conditions in the Oil Industry in Iran" published last year in Geneva.
The Company has made, and is making, an immense contribution towards raising the standard of living in Persia. Indeed, the Seven Year Development Plan on which such high hopes had been placed but which, unhappily, appears to have been abandoned, had as an essential factor the receipt by the Persian Government of increased royalties—freely offered by the Company—from the production and sale of oil. It seems that the present Persian Government are blind to the needs of their own country.
Instructions are being sent to the Company's delegation to return to this country. Meanwhile, we propose to follow up the application we have already made to The Hague Court by a further application for an indication of provisional measures to preserve the rights of the United Kingdom pending a decision on the merits of the case. We for our part still desire to see a stable, independent and prosperous Persia. Our feelings in that regard have not changed and will not change.
The difficulties that have arisen in Teheran must not for a moment obscure the difficulties of our people in Abadan and the oilfields. I want them all to know that we at home realise the strain and burden of anxiety under which they have for long enough been working. Riots, abuse, misrepresentation, and uncertainty about the future have made conditions most difficult for them. They, better than we, will know that it needs but slight deviation from their high technical skill to cause a mistake which could lead to irreparable damage and most serious disaster to life and limb, not only within the installations for which they are responsible, but perhaps throughout the neighbouring townships. While our people are there and responsible for operations, I am confident that no such mistake will be made, and that they will continue to do their duty.
As I have repeatedly informed the House, His Majesty's Government are not prepared to stand by idle if the lives of British nationals are in jeopardy. It is the responsibility of the Persian Government to see to it that law and order

523
are maintained and that all within the frontiers of Persia are protected from violence. If, however, that responsibility were not met it would equally be the right and the duty of His Majesty's Government to extend protection to their own nationals.
Mr. Eden: I think the whole House will join with the right hon. Gentleman in the tribute he has paid to our own people, both at Abadan and in the oilfields, who, in the most exacting and anxious conditions, are manfully discharging their responsibilities. I think the House will feel that this is a matter which now will have to be debated at a very early date. We have shown every restraint possible in our anxiety not to complicate the situation, but I would ask the Government whether they can consider making facilities available, I think it should be—indeed, I am sure it should be—before the weekend, so that we may examine and consider this matter and make whatever observations we can.
The second point I would put to the Foreign Secretary, and which arises from his statement, is this. He spoke of the right to protect our people. May I ask him whether His Majesty's Government have already taken any necessary preliminary steps that may be required to protect British lives and property in the threatened area? May I also ask him whether we can be assured that there is no question of the evacuation or of the surrender of these rights under an ultimatum or any other kind of threat?
Mr. Morrison: I will answer one point. We have taken all practicable steps for the protection of British lives in accordance with undertakings I have previously given. It is a matter to which we do attach the utmost importance. If the right hon. Gentleman would not mind, I would sooner not be pressed on the other point, because it is the case that it may be that if we say too much in matters of detail we may precipitate the very thing we wish to avoid.—[Interruption.]—If I may say so to back bench Members opposite, they may engage in these expressions of emotion if they wish, but I speak with the full responsibility of the Foreign Secretary, and I have a very deep responsibility for the lives and security of British people in that part of the world.
Mr. Eden: Perhaps I can put it in this way. Can we be assured that the Government have not taken, and would not take without consultation with this House, any decision of principle in respect of the evacuation or abandonment of our rights?
Mr. Morrison: We have not taken any steps to that end, but it really is not possible to tie oneself as to detail—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—on what advice one is to give to British personnel in given circumstances, and I do not wish to commit myself in detail on that point.
Mr. M. Philips Price: Is there any circulated evidence as yet of an attempt being made by the Persians to seize the Abadan oil refinery?
Mr. Morrison: Not so far as I know.
Mr. Duncan Sandys: While recognising the supreme importance of protecting British lives, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will assure us that he is not overlooking the importance also of protecting vital British interests in this area; and that, in considering the course to be adopted in this difficult matter, he will bear in mind that any abandonment of these vital British interests would have the effect of further undermining British influence throughout the Middle East, which has already disastrously declined in recent years?
Mr. Morrison: We are certainly not forgetting those considerations, but in contra-distinction, if I may say so, I would put British lives first.
Mr. Churchill: I do not wish to ask any question which has an argumentative character about it. I only wish to know whether we can be informed on a simple point of fact. Have the Government made up their minds that the British personnel are to be evacuated, or have they not made up their minds?
Mr. Morrison: I am not going to say anything about that. It would be most foolish, most unwise, and most risky. I am not going to be drawn.
Mr. Harold Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side of the House appreciate the care with which the Foreign Secretary is approaching this problem and that some of us withheld our right to a debate on this problem to help the country in this delicate situation? Is

525
he further aware that if we precipitate action here, not only may we lose the oil but we may find that Persia is more dangerous than Korea and more lives would be lost than by the action we are now taking to try to find a formula for peace?
Sir Ralph Glyn: I think that the right hon. Gentleman said the delegation were being asked to return from Persia. Can he give the House any information about when this delegation will be back so that the Foreign Office may have full information on the situation out there?
Mr. Morrison: I think we have full information, but of course it will be an advantage when we talk to the folk who have been actually in the conversations. But we have pretty full information. The return of the delegation will be early. There will, however, be sufficient time so that, if circumstances should arise to warrant reconsideration, that reconsideration can be given; but I am rather doubtful whether an opportunity for reconsideration will arise.
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House for a reply on the point which I put earlier on the question of a debate on this situation?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): We recognise the great importance, the over-riding importance, of this issue, and we should be quite willing to provide time for a discussion of this matter. I would suggest tomorrow, and perhaps discussions may take place through the usual channels with regard to some rearrangement of the business for tomorrow. There is one Measure which we very much desire to get tomorrow. I am quite sure that it will probably be better that we should be able to discuss this matter tomorrow at some reasonable length, so that from both sides of the House a reasonably full expression of opinion may be given.
Sir Ian Fraser: Is not this one of those rare cases when the unanimous feeling of our people is expressed sometimes by consultations between the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and the leaders of the Opposition, and has that been taken into consideration?
Mr. George Wigg: As we are to have a debate tomorrow, would the Foreign Secretary make available to the House
526
the conversations which have taken place between Mr. McGhee and various authorities in the Middle East on oil and related subjects?
Mr. Morrison: I appreciate the point raised by my hon. Friend, but I think that it has a certain delicacy and I had better not make an affirmative answer.
Mr. Somerset de Chair: In further reference to the Foreign Secretary's pledge to protect the lives of the British citizens involved, can he say whether or not the steps so far taken are adequate, in view of the breakdown in the negotiations and the possibility of increased tension in Khuzistan? Is it not possible that there may be some disorders and danger to life, and would it not be better to send British troops there now rather than to wait until something has happened?
Mr. Morrison: I think a little reflection on the part of the hon. Member would be welcome. One could do some things which would endanger British lives, and I think he might have thought of that before he put his supplementary question. I can assure the House that the matter has been in my mind, and in the mind of the Government ever since this trouble began, and that we are leaving nothing undone that can possibly be done to protect British lives. May I add that as we are to have a debate tomorrow, I am not sure that there is a great deal of point in having a detailed examination at this stage?
Mr. Speaker: That is so if we are to have a debate tomorrow.

CIVIL SERVICE (EQUAL PAY)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): His Majesty's Government have been asked by the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council to reconsider the possibility of applying the principle of equal pay in the Civil Service. In particular the Government were asked whether, if the full application of the principle forthwith were still impracticable, they would introduce a scheme under which, in the course of a limited period of time, the differences in pay would be progressively reduced and finally eliminated.

527
Four years ago my right hon. Friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced that the Government, after considering the Report of the Royal Commission, accepted, as regards their own employees and as a broad affirmation of a general principle, the justice of the claim that there should be no difference in payment to men and women for the same work. He went on, however, to make it plain that in view of the cost involved and the consequences to the national economy, the principle could not be applied at that time.
In the light of this statement and in response to the request made to them by the Staff Side, the Government have undertaken a full review of the problem and of the probable consequences of the introduction of equal pay. It is important that these should be widely understood and I should therefore like to explain them in some detail.
Any decision by the Government on this matter could not, of course, be limited in its effects to the Civil Service, but would inevitably have to be extended to those employed in other public services, including teachers and other local government staffs. The cost of the full introduction of equal pay in all the public services would be £25 million a year.
But there would also be more far-reaching consequences. A change of this kind would be a signal to the rest of the community. There are many occupations in private industry and commerce where women are paid less than men for similar work, the difference in pay often being much greater than in the Civil Service. There can be no doubt that the introduction of equal pay in the public services would be followed swiftly by its introduction in other occupations, and that any increases in pay given to women in employments common to both sexes would give rise to similar increases for women employed on purely women's work. Thus the effect of the Government decision would be to improve the position of women in relation to men throughout employment generally.
This is, of course, not an argument against equal pay for equal work; it is in part its logical application and in part a further consequence which many would regard as equally desirable. It is, how-
528
ever, also true, unfortunately, that this process, even if it had no other consequences, would raise industrial costs substantially and so drive up prices further.
In fact, however, it would have another result, which is perhaps not always fully appreciated. The majority of men employees have families dependent upon them; the majority of women employees have not. The introduction of equal pay would mean that the standard of living of a married man with a wife and children to support would compare unfavourably with that of an unmarried woman with no dependants. This would give rise to demands for much larger family allowances, either by an extension of the national scheme or through special arrangements in particular occupations.
Such increases in family allowances, which are indeed in many respects the logical accompaniment of equal pay for men and women, are no doubt very desirable. But, there can be no question but that the cost to public funds and the burden on industry would be very heavy. Prices would go up further and taxation would have to be increased. As the House well knows, our economy is at present subject to powerful inflationary influences both external and internal. In such circumstances it is the duty of the Government to do everything possible to reduce these pressures. Unfortunately the introduction of equal pay would undoubtedly make matters worse.
The Government have nevertheless examined with care and sympathy, and in great detail, the possibility of making some very gradual change which would bring equal pay into operation in the public services over a period. They have, however, come to the conclusion that any proposal which was neither utterly derisory nor plainly inequitable would be followed, as certainly, if less rapidly, by the same dangerous consequences as the full introduction of equal pay forthwith.
It is true that its gradual introduction in the public services would not impose at first such a heavy burden on public funds. But there seems no doubt that such a decision would be followed by the introduction of much more rapid schemes in other occupations, where a similar gradual extension would probably not be practicable at all. This in turn would

529
make it extremely difficult to avoid speeding up the schemes in the public services themselves.
The Government therefore do not consider that they can proceed to extend the principle until the full consequences for the economy as a whole, including any necessary increase in family allowances, can be accepted within a relatively short period of time. That being so they have come with great regret to the conclusion that they cannot for the present depart from the decision announced in 1947. I am informing the National Staff Side accordingly.
Mr. R. A. Butler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House have also made an affirmation of our belief in the general principles concerned, namely, a belief in equal pay for equivalent work? Is he also aware that, in carefully worded statements, we have gone rather further? Will he allay some of the undoubted anxiety which will be aroused by his statement that this reform may be indefinitely postponed? Would he also go a little further? As I understand it, there are already certain inroads into this principle in the Civil Service, particularly in the Health Service. Would it not be possible to carry that inroad further by making an advance in other services within the Government? Further, can he tell us whether, taking into account his last paragraph, this reform in future is to be indelibly linked in the mind of the Government with a further addition to the family allowance scheme? If the right hon. Gentleman would answer those points, I think that it would help the House.
Mr. Gaitskell: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I would say that the Government affirm the principle of equal pay. They believe that this is a right and just principle, and that in appropriate circumstances it should be possible to apply it in full. As regards the question of extending it to various other sections of the public services, I do not think I can add anything to the statement that I have made. I have indicated that the difficulty there is even in any gradual extension. On the last point, it is the Government's view that any serious attempt at introducing the principle in the way that we have indicated would have to be linked with an extension of family allowances.
Miss Burton: While realising to the full the grave economic problems of the Government, it is with very great regret that I heard the Chancellor's statement. I should like to ask him whether it is not entirely out of date and old-fashioned still to compare a married man with the single woman? Surely, the comparison should be between a single man and a single woman, and, on the other hand, persons with dependants, irrespective of sex? May I ask the Chancellor whether he fully realises that, when a man grows old and retires from business or work, his former dependants are in a position to help him financially, whereas the dependants of a single woman remain dependants for the rest of their lives?
Mr. Gaitskell: In reply to my hon. Friend, I would point out that I did not say that every woman in employment had no dependants, or that every man had dependants, but, as the Royal Commission on Equal Pay pointed out, and I am quoting from their Report:
"The main significant effect of the change to equal pay would be to leave the married man with a family, whose case is in any event not notably easy, economically worse off than any other member of the community."
It is for that reason that we took the view that any such scheme of that kind would have to be associated with an extension of the dependants' allowances.
Miss Irene Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of what a very great blow his decision will be to very many women throughout the country? Can he say why he chose this particular moment to announce it, before the golden jubilee of the women's Civil Service and the occasion on which the delegates of the United Kingdom Government have gone to Geneva to discuss the question of a Convention on Equal Pay in line with the Charter of Human Rights? Is he also aware that on this occasion, which is perhaps rather unusual, I should prefer to withhold my comments until I have studied the full implications of what he has said, but is he aware further that, since the Royal Commission and since the statement of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer that the country could not afford it, £40 million has been added to the salaries and wages of the Civil Service?
Mr. Speaker: We cannot possibly debate the matter now. The hon. Lady should only ask questions. Miss Lee.
Miss Ward Miss Ward rose—
Mr. Speaker: I have told the hon. Lady that she was debating the matter, and therefore I called someone else.
Miss Ward: On a point of order. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, I have taken a considerable part in this movement. Am I not allowed, as I put the first question to the Chancellor yesterday, to put my point of view?
Mr. Speaker: No, I am afraid the hon. Lady is not allowed. It is my business to choose, and, as she was taking up far too much time, in my opinion, I decided that I could not allow her to do so. I am afraid the Speaker's Ruling has to be obeyed.
Miss Jennie Lee: Is the Chancellor aware that many of us in this House are vividly concerned that equal pay should be linked with a still further improvement in the family allowances, or some other such step? Is he also aware that it would be easier for us to adopt that point of view if we felt that his statement today was accompanied by an understandable plan of Socialist priorities? How can we accept the argument that equal pay brings inflationary pressure when we have got a great deal of inflationary pressure already from the City and other sources?
Mr. Gaitskell: In reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward), I would point out that the timing of my statement was simply the result of the Government reaching a decision a few days ago, and that it had no connection with the various other activities which she mentioned. To my hon. Friend, I would say that the plain fact cannot be disguised that the introduction of this scheme now, with all its implications on family allowances, would have very serious inflationary consequences which, in my view, we could not tolerate.
Mr. Grimond: May I ask the Chancellor whether his statement, in which he said that he has for the time being, as I understood it, decided against even the gradual introduction of the principle of equal pay, means that even where new scales are being negotiated, as in the case of the teaching profession, he will riot even in those cases do something to give proper expression to the very wide feeling which I think exists that the case for the
532
equity of equal pay is overwhelming, whatever the economic circumstances?
Mr. Gaitskell: Nothing that I have said will interfere with the ordinary procedure of negotiations in industry. There has been a marrying of the differentiation for some time.
Mrs. Middleton: While regretting the necessity for the Chancellor's statement, may I ask him whether he is aware that the vast majority of women in this country would regard as his prime responsibility and that of the Government the large number of housewives in the lower income group, who are facing very heavy family responsibilities?
Mr. Woodburn: Is the Chancellor aware that, while at first sight it seems that it is a handicap on women not having equal pay in industry, many women feel that equal pay would be a serious disadvantage to them and would drive them out of industry, because of economic handicaps in regard to men? Is he not aware that equal pay can be accomplished by reducing men's standards as well as by raising women's standards, and that that might be the inevitable result?
Mr. Harry Wallace: May I ask my right hon. Friend, since his statement referred to the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council, whether it is a Government decision which cannot be discussed or negotiated, and whether the Staff Side will be given an opportunity to express its views and invite the Government to review the decision which they have just announced? May I also ask him whether he is aware that the gradual application or approximation of the two standards for males and females during the last war encouraged women to go into industry? Does he not think that the Government should review this decision about gradual application, and so encourage women to return to industry?
Mr. Gaitskell: This is a Government decision. There is no reason why the Staff Side should not discuss it. I hope they will, and perhaps I may add that if they have any points to raise, they might draw my attention to them, but I can hold out no hope of a review of the decision at the moment.
Mr. Wilkes: If a thoroughly inflationary situation develops, and there are no correct priorities, is it not a fact that, if

533
there should be any chance in the near future of giving to the public any considerable benefit in the way of increased payments of any kind, the highest priority should be given to the sick and the unemployed, and those who are now waiting with anxiety for the repayment of their post-war credits?
Mr. Speaker: We are getting all over the place now.
Miss Lee: May I ask the Chancellor to reply to the point which I put to him, which was in regard to his statement that equal pay at this moment would have inflationary effects, when still greater inflationary effects are evident because of high profits? Can he not give an indication that he will exercise the same severity towards the City as towards women?
Mr. Gaitskell: I would say that both these questions raise very wide issues, but I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the substantial increase in the Profits Tax introduced in the Budget.
Mr. Chetwynd: Has my right hon. Friend completely given up the idea of giving equal increments over a period to meet this position?
Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir, for the reasons given in my statement. I think that would also lead to inflationary consequences.
Mr. Gibson: May we take it that this decision will not mean that, in those cases where local authorities are prepared to consider, stage by stage and grade by grade, equalising pay for their staff, there will be no pressure put upon them by the Treasury to stop them doing it?
Mr. Gaitskell: It would not be for me to put any pressure on local authorities in matters of that kind.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  LEASEHOLD PROPERTY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  LEASEHOLD PROPERTY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

    Clause 1.—(CONTINUATION OF EXPIRING LONG TENANCY WHERE TENANT IN OCCUPATION.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 11, leave out "immediately before" and insert:
    "at all times during the period beginning with the twentieth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty, and ending with".
    4.10 p.m.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment raises an issue which was very fully discussed when the Bill we are now considering was passing through its earlier stages in this House, and I do not know that I can really add very much to what was then said. I do not think that much of the arguments which were fully examined earlier can be gone over with advantage.
    The apprehensions which led the noble Lords in another place to make the change which we are now discussing were that, unless there was some qualifying period of residence, it would, in some circumstances, be possible for an unscrupulous person who really did not want to reside in the premises for his own occupation, to make use of the provisions of the Bill when it became an Act in order to give himself an income.
    As I think was pointed out when the Bill was earlier before the House, in some cases that may be possible, but the disadvantage of inserting any qualifying period is that even if it prevented some unscrupulously-minded persons from profiting in a pecuniary sense by the protection given under the Bill, it would also exclude from its protection a great many extremely deserving cases who certainly ought to come within its ambit.
    For example, it would exclude from the protection the following kind of case. A person may have bought the tail end of a lease some considerable time ago. He may have bought it with the idea of living in the premises on retirement, or

    535
    something of that sort, and he may have bought it knowing that there was a tenant in the premises. As I say, he may have bought the lease some considerable time ago, perhaps a year or two or even more ago, and after having secured a promise from the occupying tenant that he would soon vacate the premises so that the purchaser of the lease would be able to move into them.
    Owing to the post-war scarcity of accommodation, it would not be unnatural if the tenant asked the purchaser for some indulgence. Even though he bound himself to vacate the premises, he might, nevertheless, ask the purchaser of the lease to give him further time. If the purchaser gave him further time, and, in other words, showed clemency to the tenant, the result might very well be that the purchaser who bona fide wanted to get into the premises as soon as he could in order to retire and live in them would be deprived of the protection given by the Bill for the very reason that he showed clemency to the existing tenant.
    The tenant might repeatedly promise to go out and repeatedly secure indulgence from the purchaser of the lease, and, in consequence, the time might come when the Bill had been introduced and when 20th November, 1950, had gone by. The result of that would be, if this qualifying period were inserted, that all perfectly deserving cases of that sort would be excluded from the protection of the Bill. In those circumstances, the choice before the House is this. If we insert a qualifying period, some undeserving persons will be kept out. They will be few in number and there has been no indication that any attempt has been made to make use of the provisions of the Bill for purposes other than those intended under it.
    4.15 p.m.
    Let it be conceded that there will be some rare cases, but nevertheless some cases. That is an argument in favour of the Amendment, but, against that, there will be a great many deserving persons who will not get the benefit. It is a question of weighing one against the other. This is not a permanent Measure, but simply a standstill Measure, and, that being so, I hope the House will record its disagreement with the Amendment and its agreement with the view taken by the Government that it does not improve the Measure, but weakens it by cutting out a
    536
    great many people simply and solely because they may then exercise mercy in not turning others out of premises in which they themselves wish to live. It is a question of choice between those two things, and I sincerely hope that the House will decide against this proposed change introduced in another place.
    Mr. Manniagham-Buller: In asking the House to disagree with this Amendment, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward one instance where he contends that some hardship would occur if we agreed to the Amendment. It is true that we have had considerable discussion on this question in the past, and a considerable time has indeed elapsed since the House last had an opportunity of discussing the Bill. But I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the provision of a qualifying period was, in fact, recommended in the majority report of the Leasehold Committee, and that the period which they recommended was one of three years, a much longer period than that suggested in this Amendment. That, I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, was in accordance with the main principle advanced in favour of this Measure in the first place.
    As I understood it, it was said that this Bill had to be brought in to protect those who had been living for years in houses held under ground leases from the situation which would arise on the termination of those leases in view of the acute housing shortage, for which the party opposite are so largely responsible. That was the main argument put forward, and it was for that reason, and to ensure that the protection went to those people, that the majority of the Leasehold Committee recommended a three-year qualifying period.
    We discussed that—I do not think at undue length in view of the importance of this Measure—in Committee of the House on 30th January. The Government resisted that proposal and we were defeated on it. It was on Report in the House that we moved an Amendment providing that this Clause should only apply to those in occupation on 20th November and who are still in occupation. Again, the Government resisted that, and again we were defeated in the

    537
    Lobbies, but not, in my view, in the argument.
    The question having been considered afresh in another place, the noble Lords made the Amendment which we are now discussing and which the Government ask us to reject. I think I have heard all the debates on this question in the House and I have read reports of what took place elsewhere, and I can only say that the arguments so skilfully advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and by others on that side of the House have struck me as very thin and very unconvincing.
    I should like to deal with the argument advanced today by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Obviously, if this Amendment is accepted it will not exclude any of those for whose benefit the Bill was primarily intended at the time of its introduction. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that. Even the man who has been in residence for only a week before the publication of the Bill would come within its scope. All the Amendment does is to eliminate those who first take up residence after they have been able to see the contents of the Bill, after they have become aware that if this Bill becomes an Act they will get a further two-year tenancy at a rent which was perhaps a proper rent for the property 99 years ago.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward the case of someone who made an arrangement with a tenant—as an example, someone who has made an arrangement with a tenant to go into occupation towards the end of a lease. In his example it must be an arrangement to enter into occupation and to reside there some time after 20th November.
    The Attorney-General: Not an arrangement with somebody to go into occupation towards the end of a lease. It may well be an arrangement with the purchaser to go in himself almost immediately, but he cannot do so and the tenant stays in month after month because there is nowhere the tenant can go. That is simply an example. I could give many others.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I will give an example or two to the right hon. and learned Gentleman of cases which perhaps he has ignored. The case which he put—
    538
    and I do not think I misunderstood him—was that in which a man goes in after 20th November for what remains of the lease. That is departing from what was the original motive of the Bill, and in departing from it the right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked the House to ignore completely what arrangements may have been made, and in all probability were made, by other people for what should happen when the lease expires.
    He has talked of someone making arrangements to go in after 20th November and to reside for the last bit of the lease, but it is very likely that the number of cases where that has been arranged—and I should not have thought there were many—is far exceeded by the number of cases in which people have arranged to take the property to secure residence for themselves—where people, knowing that the lease is running out, have agreed to buy a house so that they might go in. Surely those people who want the house for their own residence are equally deserving of consideration.
    What the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to do is to exclude all those categories of persons, who are just as anxious to obtain housing accommodation; whereas all we are seeking to do is to make the Bill accord with the object for which it was originally intended—namely, to apply to those who have for a long time been living in these houses and not to give priority—as the rejection of this Amendment will give priority—to the person who obtains the fag end of a lease and resides in the property after 20th November. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will give priority to that person over the person who has arranged to buy his own residence and to reside in the property when the lease has expired. Those people are being driven to the wall.
    By their action on this issue the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party have convinced me that their attitude is due either to obstinacy—to showing the people that they are the masters now—or to the fact that they are unable to refrain from pursuing their vendetta against landlords, just as they have pursued it against other classes of the community, as we have seen in the last few days. The arguments advanced by the

    539
    right hon. and learned Gentleman in resisting this Amendment are very thin and completely unconvincing. They amount to a complete disregard of the interests of other people who are seeking residential accommodation for themselves.
    As I understand it, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to consider any qualifying period whatsoever from 20th November onwards to the date when the lease expires. Anyone who, by some means or another—by paying a premium—is able to get himself into residence a moment before the lease expires, is, in the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party, a worthy beneficiary of this Measure.
    Sir Patrick Spens: I want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider this matter. On either the Report stage or in Committee I cited a case which had arisen in my constituency where a tenant of a house on a long building lease, which will come to an end very shortly, bought the lease and became the landlord of the eight or 10 occupiers of the house. He did that two or three years ago as nothing but a speculation. He proceeded not only to put up the rents in every way he could and whenever he got a chance, but when premises became vacant he introduced tenants of a most undesirable class who were ready to pay high rents for those premises. He never came near as a resident until after the Bill was printed and then, as I informed the Committee when the Clause was being discussed, he managed to get possession of one room and from time to time he sleeps there.
    The situation is that the sub-tenants as a body desire that he shall cease to be their landlord. The ground landlord is a well-known family estate and is a good landlord; and the sub-tenants want that estate to become their landlord as soon as the lease comes to an end, as it will on the 24th of this month. What has happened? This man goes into residence and, as a result of this Bill, will be put in possession for another two years to go on behaving in the way in which he has been behaving.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: What does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest to deal with that?
    Sir P. Spens: If this Amendment is accepted that lease will come to an end automatically on 24th June and the occupiers will become the tenants of the ground landlord. In other words, they will become the tenants of a good, responsible landlord.
    Mr. Hale: But what does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest?
    Sir P. Spens: That this Amendment should be accepted and that this sort of arrangement should be brought to an end once and for all.
    Mr. William Elwyn Jones: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the occupiers will become the tenants of the ground landlord. In view of the Knightsbridge case, is he quite certain that that is so?
    4.30 p.m.
    Sir P. Spens: Yes, certainly. They will become the tenants of the ground landlord. It is true that the ground landlord will be in a position to deal with the tenancies as they come to an end. That is perfectly true; but those thoroughly undesirable tenants under the long lease will be got rid of, and there will be a much more satisfactory situation in that particular house.
    I cannot say whether that is a common instance. I know of another in another part of London—another instance of exactly the same thing—where a man bought up a long lease and has been making money out of it during the last two or three years by introducing thoroughly undesirable tenants who are prepared to pay very high rents. In that instance, too, the ground landlord is a responsible, well-known body we all know as a good landlord. In that instance, too, that leaseholder and tenant will be allowed to go on as the immediate landlord of the occupiers for another two years, thanks to the view being taken by the Government upon this qualifying clause.
    Mr. L. Hale: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Sir P. Spens: No. I want to deal with the case put up by the learned Attorney-General.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that the people who will suffer are those who buy these tenancies

    541
    to try to make these places their homes. He presupposes that the premises are in the occupation of sub-tenants. He presupposes that those people are buying in order to make the places their homes. Those are the people with whom we are dealing. In fact such a person is buying the lease only in the last year or two of the long lease. Obviously, he is not buying that to make it his home.
    If he had bought it years and years ago and allowed tenants to go on for a whole series of years with their tenancies then it would be possible to presuppose that he bought it for the purpose of making it his home; but if he allowed them to go on holding right down to the time when the Bill was introduced it is quite impossible to believe that he bought it for the purpose of making it his home. It is quite impossible, I suggest.
    I simply cannot follow the learned Attorney-General's argument on that at all. If he bought, and found himself the landlord of, a lease with two years to run, I cannot imagine that he bought it for his home. The man who has done that has done it not to get a home but to be the landlord of the occupiers of places like that, and that person finds that, because he is in the occupation of one room, he will be able to extend his very profitable investment another two years.
    That has nothing to do with what the Bill was introduced for. It was introduced for the purpose of protecting people who bought these houses for their homes and who have been in occupying possession of their homes for years and years. We all want to protect those people. All that this Amendment does is simply to say that if one is the owner of a long lease, and one was not in occupation before the Bill was printed, then the fact that one went into occupation after the Bill was published shall mean that one is not entitled to the benefit of the protection of the Bill.
    The Government's view means that the only people who are going to get that protection are people who have bought in order to become immediate landlords and to make money out of the premises. The Attorney-General shakes his head. I have done my best to convince him. I am perfectly certain that the qualifying period will do far more good than harm, but the
    542
    Government are determined about this matter, and I cannot do anything more.
    It may have something to do with subtenants. I do not think so, because this Bill does, I think, protect sub-tenants, but I cannot believe that sub-tenants will be better off if this Bill is passed without this Amendment, and I beg the learned Attorney-General to put in a provision of this description to prevent the sort of bad thing I have been describing from continuing any longer.
    Mr. Janner: I think it is advisable for a few minutes to make a somewhat different approach to this matter from that which has been taken so far. This Amendment is an attempt to limit the Bill itself. That attempt was made here and in another place, and it is something we ought very strongly to resist, not only for the reasons that have been given by the learned Attorney-General, but because it strikes at the very root of the Bill. If the Amendment were accepted, it would still further limit what is intended—the protection of leaseholders whose leases are coming to an end.
    Let me take the very illustration that was given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller). He was complaining that people purchase the fag ends of leases so that, in consequence of the Bill, they can get possession of properties when the leases terminate. Is he unaware of the fact that for years people have been purchasing the fag ends of leases—purchasing the ground rents—so that they may turn out the tenants when the leases end? That is what we on this side of the House want to stop. We want to make it perfectly clear that this is only a Measure for the time being, until the introduction of a better Measure which will protect leaseholders.
    Let us not make any bones about that. If hon. Members on the opposite side of the House want to stop leasehold reform let them say it now so that the country may see what exactly is the attitude they are taking. We on this side of the House say we want this moratorium, as it were, to give the Government an opportunity of deciding what is the best way of protecting leaseholders who have built the houses, or whose predecessors built the houses, and who, at the end of

    543
    their leases, look like being turned out, to be charged five, 10, 20, 30 times the amount of rent they have been paying.
    Sir P. Spens: And who are not occupying their houses.
    Mr. Janner: That is where I differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman. There are hundreds and hundreds of cases, even if the question of occupation only is taken into consideration, of hardship. There are people who have let their places and who cannot get in because there has been delay in the courts. I do not want to pursue that matter.
    We want—we on this side, certainly, and, I think, all of us—the leasehold system to be reformed. We want to make it clear that, when this Bill has been passed, we shall consider ways and means whereby this vicious system, which allows people at the end of long leases not to get the benefits of what they have themselves done for improving lands and buildings will be remedied. With that in view I am glad to hear that the Attorney-General is resisting this Amendment. I think that we have already gone much farther than we should have done in conceding things to those who want to destroy the idea of leasehold reform. If the Amendment is pressed to a Division the country will see that we are resisting an attempt to reduce a Measure which is intended to help the people.
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I usually listen to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) with attention, occasionally even verging on admiration, though IS do not as a rule agree with him. But I think the House will agree that he was hardly at his best in the speech which he has just made. It was really a short but rather violent Second Reading speech about the Bill as a whole. The hon. Member sought to say that the fact that we on this side of the House are supporting this Amendment meant that we were against what he is pleased to term leasehold reform. He did not condescend to a definition of what he meant by leasehold reform.
    If he meant that we on this side of the House were against the principle of the Bill and were against doing something to meet this situation, then clearly he was entirely wrong. As he well knows, there was no Division against the Second
    544
    Reading of this Bill either in this House or in the other place. The hon. Member for Oldham—
    Mr. L. Hale:—West.
    Mr. Walker-Smith:—for one of the less fortunate parts of Oldham, dodges in and out of the House at his own sweet will and, as soon as he comes in, from a sedentary position, he starts to direct towards me a barrage of interruptions, as he did towards my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensingtin, South (Sir P. Spens) and—
    Mr. Hale Mr. Hale rose—
    Mr. Walker-Smith: When I get to a semi-colon I shall be happy to give way, but on the last occasion when the hon. Member managed to favour the House with his presence—
    Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman is rather less than courteous. I think it was the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who was a member of the Committee, who attacked the whole of the proposals, not on the basis of the Report he had signed but on the basis of instructions which he had from the Conservative Central Office. We had, from start to finish, a devastating attack from hon. Members opposite designed to destroy the whole of the proposals of this Bill.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: If I had realised that there was to be so little point in the interruption of the hon. Member, I should have hesitated to exercise the usual courtesy of giving way. My hon. and learned Friend is able to look after himself, and the House will recall the admirable constructive speech which he made on the Second Reading of the Bill.
    All we are concerned with, in spite of the fire of the two hon. Members opposite, which is in inverse proportion to the light which they shed on these problems, is the one issue of whether or not there should be a residential qualification before people can get the very substantial benefit that the Bill confers. The matter was put quite temperately, as one would expect, by the Attorney-General, and it was temperately put in another place. It was there described as a balance of convenience. I think that one noble Lord, perhaps rather less precise in his use of language, called it a balance of equity.

    545
    The Lord Chancellor admitted that it might well be that he was wrong in the view he had formed. Hon. Members opposite may think that that shows an unfashionable broad-mindedness and fairness of approach. But that is the sort of way in which we have dealt with the Bill—not in these violent terms but as a balance of convenience.
    I accept that position but I believe that, when weighing that balance, it comes down clearly in favour of imposing a residential qualification. If that is not done two undesirable results ensue. First, there is the case of the person who takes the assignment of the lease after publication of the Bill to get the advantages of the two-year extension at an uneconomic rent. Secondly, there is the position of the man who is paying what is an uneconomic rent for what he is getting. I am glad to note that there appears to be one provision in the Bill which hon. Members opposite understand and agree with. A lessee who has a sub-tenant in occupation may himself seek to get possession, for precisely the same reason. Both of these cases were canvassed in another place.
    4.45 p.m.
    In both cases undesirable results follow, because there would be somebody getting the one-way benefit of this Clause who does not, in my view, deserve it. Secondly, it leads to interruptions of occupancy at a time when that is undesirable. In the unlovely jargon of the day, it favours what is called the fag-end speculator. I did not speak on the Second Reading of the Bill and so, perhaps out of an abundance of caution, though I have declared it before, I should say that in addition to the interest that we all share in these matters, I am a director of a public company which owns a substantial amount of property both residential and otherwise.
    As a matter of fact, my company is not at all interested in the first part of this Bill and very slightly interested in the second. But I make that declaration out of caution. It enables me to say that, having that special interest in these matters, I consider that the curse of the property world is the property speculator. I am glad to see that one hon. Member opposite nods his head. A short time ago—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member appears to be going into a much wider question than that covered by the Lords Amendment.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I want to understand your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have only made one observation following a formal declaration of interest which, as I did not speak on the Second Reading of the Bill, I thought it appropriate to do. Am I to apprehend that you think it inappropriate that I should have made that declaration, or is it that you do not wish me to proceed with my argument?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It was quite proper for the hon. Gentleman to make that declaration, but I understood that he was about to make some animadversions on some class of property owner or speculator which appeared to be somewhat far from the subject we are discussing.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Constantly, both this afternoon and during the Second Reading of this Bill, reference has been made to what I call this unlovely jargon—the fag-end speculator. All I was concerned to say—and in my respectful submission it must be in order—was that speculators are the curse of the property world. As this Clause encourages the speculator it is desirable that it should be amended in the way suggested. If I am right in thinking that that is in order, having made the point and having, to some extent, won the assent of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, I leave it and come to what I might call the other side of the balance sheet, that is, the deserving people who might conceivably be prejudiced if the Amendment was inserted.
    The Attorney-General has spoken of the tardy person who gets possession—a deferred possession from his sub-tenant. I think that point was effectively dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South, who pointed out that such a person getting possession at this stage could not have very serious intentions in regard to permanent residential occupancy. Further, I submit that one of the considerations put forward from this side of the House on the Second Reading of the Bill was the disadvantage to which people were exposed who had been counting, on the expiry of the lease, on regaining possession for purposes of their own occupancy.
    Mr. Janner: Were not all those people aware that for years a committee was sitting to inquire into the question of lease-holds? Did not they have a shrewd idea that the system was vicious and ought to be altered?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: So far as this system is concerned, there is an infinite variety of cases to be judged on their own facts. There has been a committee on rating of site values, sitting for years, but no one expects anything to emerge from it.
    To return to the point that I was making, may I say that hon. Members on this side of the House did point to that position in its much wider context on the Second Reading of the Bill? Hon. Members who were speaking from the other side of the House brushed that consideration aside in its wider context, but now praise it in this much narrower content as the sole ground for opposing this Amendment.
    There was another class of case referred to in another place which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman dealt with, namely, the case of the previous occupying lessee who has sub-let at the material time. An instance was given of the person who may have gone to the Argentine or to Paris because he did not like the climate here. It was put forward that those were the people who might lose the benefit of the Bill by not being in residence on the material date.
    Mr. L. Hale Mr. L. Hale indicated dissent.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I do wish that the hon. Member for Oldham, West, would not shake his head.
    Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman would not let me intervene.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I did, and the hon. Gentleman's intervention was entirely irrelevant.
    That was the best instance that the united wisdom of the hon. Gentleman's party in another place could give. They instanced the case of the person who sub-let at the material time to go to the Argentine or to Paris because he did not like the rigours of the climate here. On that point I say that the one-way benefits of this Clause should go to those who deserve them most and those who
    548
    are in need of accommodation. I seriously submit to the House that people who are in such desperate need of accommodation that they need the one-way benefits of the Clause, are not the sort of people who would be globe trotting, even if their visits to the Argentine or to Paris were of an official nature, as I believe was suggested in that debate.
    For all these reasons and for one other, it seems to me that this case is abundantly made out. The other consideration is, of course, that the Leasehold Committee, as a result of their deliberations, or, at any rate, the majority of them, in paragraph 108 of their report, did prescribe a residential qualification for this purpose, and, in my view, the House would be wise to adhere to that view, taken as a result of long deliberations, rather than to take the view of hon. Members opposite which has been put forward with more fire than enlightenment.
    Mr. L. Hale: The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) repeatedly refused to give way when a Member of this House who has been considering this matter for several years desired to give certain facts. I appreciate that in the speech we have just heard facts would have been irrelevant and inappropriate. Had I managed to insert certain facts, they would have destroyed the value of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to say that I did not interrupt him?
    Mr. Hale: I was referring to the hon. Gentleman opposite who refused to give way.
    Sir P. Spens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way to me?
    Mr. Hale: No, I will not. I tried to interrupt to give certain facts, which I consider are relevant, for the consideration of the House. The hon. Gentleman opposite refused to accept facts and to give way, and I now rise to give them.
    Sir P. Spens: On a point of order. I very rarely rise on a point of order, but when the hon. Gentleman says that I refused to give way and that is not correct I am entitled to point out that I did give way once. He tried to make me give way a second time, but then I did not. I did give way once to his interruptions.
    Mr. Hale: I do not know what is the relevance of that intervention. There are certain facts. We are not today discussing people who live in the Argentine or France. We are discussing people who are wandering about the streets of London looking for houses and who have not a roof over their heads, and the problems of everyday life that confront every Member of this House.
    I ask the hon. Member for Hertford if he is living in a rarified atmosphere and does not know that people are living in overcrowded conditions and trying to find houses. Is he suggesting that this is an academic problem of whether some one who is going abroad wants to arrange accommodation for some one else, or a serious problem of people who need houses?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: As the hon. Gentleman appears to be putting a question to me at some length, may I answer as briefly as I can? The illustration about Paris and the Argentine was, of course, not mine.
    Mr. Hale: Yes, it was.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that it was mine. It was not; it was, of course, the Lord Chancellor's, as the hon. Gentleman will speedily discover if he rather tardily reads the proceedings on this Amendment in another place. He asked me what has come to my notice in regard to this matter. I will answer by saying that in regard to this particular Bill I have had, so far as my recollection goes, only two written communications from my 66,000 electors, and I have not had any representations on the Bill.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will confine themselves to the particular Amendment we are discussing and not to wider issues.
    Mr. Hale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because he has confessed that he has not even sought to consult his constituents on this problem. He has sat back and written a couple of letters. He has probably had ten or dozen letters on speedways in which the public are not greatly interested. We who try to live with the people who suffer know that day after day fantastic problems arise concerning men, women and
    550
    children who are seeking a roof. The whole object of this Clause, which is not very important or constructive, was merely to say that in leasehold property that protection should be given. I tried to interrupt the hon. Gentleman several times, but he refused to give way.
    We have listened during the course of the debate to speeches from hon. Members opposite which have been completely destructive. They wish to destroy the Bill. The House of Lords wish to destroy this Bill. The whole object of this Amendment has been to completely frustrate the Bill. I think that we are entitled to say that the whole object of the Amendment in another place has been to destroy and frustrate this Bill, and we are here to battle with that desire to frustrate it.
    The Amendments as they are tabled make the Bill negative. We are discussing at the moment the first Amendment, and I will confine my observations to it. Anyone in this House who has listened to this debate cannot fail to realise that what we have heard from the opposite benches are all arguments on behalf of the absentee landlord and the other financial interests concerned with house property, while, on the other hand, we on these benches have been concerned with the tenant whose home, life, tenure of property and the very future of his family are at stake. That is the fundamental battle.
    5.0 p.m.
    There have been fantastic illustrations from hon. Members opposite. In the law we have two curious phrases, one suppresio veri and the other suggestio falsi. Both these phrases probably represent the arguments of the Opposition. They cannot be translated here because of our Parliamentary language, but they mean playing down the truth and something that is false. That is what hon. Members opposite have been doing during the whole course of this debate. It has been a case of suppression of the truth, suppression of the suffering, agony, dismalness and frustration of the man who finds himself forced out of his home. Of course, the suggestio falsi is talking about the Argentine, people going abroad and so on—
    Mr. Walker-Smith: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to reflect on a noble Lord in another place in this way?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not gather that the hon. Member's remarks were a reflection on a noble Lord, but in any event references to noble Lords in another place are out of order.
    Mr. Hale: I have not made a reference to any noble Lord in another place for this reason, that I have not even read the speeches there. What I am suggesting is that you said something which was not true, and that the whole of your speech was not facing the situation but was suppressing the truth.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: On a point of order. Much may be forgiven to an overwrought Member who has not shone in this debate, but I must seek your protection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and ask whether that remark is not grossly out of order and a grave abuse of the traditions of the House.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member strictly was referring to the Chair in what he said. I hope and feel that he did not intend any reflection on the Chair.
    Mr. Hale: I did not quite clearly hear what you said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I bow to the Ruling which you made. All I suggested was that the speech of the hon. Member was devoid of fact and was based only on oratory. In my view it was not very good oratory at that. I may be wrong on the second, but I am right on the first. That is all I wish to say on this point. I think the whole attack on this Bill from the benches opposite and from another place—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the Amendment on the Order Paper, which really deals with the precise point of the occupation of a tenant or a member of his family and the date thereof.
    Mr. Hale: I realise that my remarks must be limited to the Amendment before the House. The view of another place is really antagonistic to reform and opposed to the provision of the security of the people who are suffering and are displaced. Therefore, I hope we shall resist this Amendment and every other Amendment in the course of the afternoon.
    Mr. Henry Brooke: Whether the speeches from this side of the House have been destructive or constructive, the speech to which we have
    552
    just listened has been entirely irrelevant to the Amendment under discussion. Not being a lawyer myself, I feel incredibly audacious in taking part in this debate at all, but perhaps a few words from a non-lawyer may encourage the small scattering of non-lawyers whom I see in the House at the moment.
    At an early stage of the Bill I said that this Clause as drafted by the Government
    "seems to give assistance to people who have no claim whatever to that type of assistance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1951; Vol.
    483, c. 916.]
    The Amendment that has been passed in another place is designed to exclude one section of those people, who have no right to assistance, from the Bill. That is why I hope that we shall agree with the Lords in their Amendment, because I see no need whatever why Parliament should go out of its way to help the speculator or the person who is not suffering hardship and has no special claim to any assistance.
    I have criticised this Bill, not because I do not realise the existence of a potential evil which must be remedied, but because I think this is a bad instrument for remedying it. We on this side of the House are endeavouring to turn it into a better instrument. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale), has spoken of people tramping the streets looking for a home. I know it. I have thousands of people in my constituency on the waiting lists. Hampstead consists largely of leasehold property. No single deserving case where this Bill will prevent hardship has in fact come to my notice.
    What I want to point out to the hon. Member is that it is not the deserving people who are tramping the streets who will be assisted, if this House disagrees with the Lords Amendment. The people whom this Amendment is designed to exclude from the advantages of the Bill are people who have a home already, who are people of some substance, in that they are non-occupying lessees. Unless this Amendment is inserted in the Bill, an opportunity will be offered to them somehow to get into occupation just before the date of expiry, and then enjoy the privileges which the House in general intended for those who were long-term occupiers.

    553
    We on this side believe that there is a considerable number of not very desirable people who may seize on this loophole and enjoy the Bill's advantages. The learned Attorney-General has told us that there are a great many people, who, if this Amendment is agreed to, will be excluded from advantages which they ought to possess. He instanced the retired man who has bought the end of a lease and has been kindly allowing the existing occupier to remain in occupation until such time as he could find another place to go and live. This man who was retired must have had a very short expectation of life, in his own view, if he took the trouble to buy a property with only two or three years' lease unexpired to retire to, and I cannot accept that this represents a substantial category of people who are going to suffer if this Amendment is not agreed to.
    It is a matter of balance, I agree, for we have to make up our minds as to where the greater amount of advantage or disadvantage lies, but I take unkindly the allegation that has been made from the other side of the House this afternoon that we on this side are not addressing ourselves to the practical problem and are not trying to fashion this Bill to be the most effective instrument of justice. I therefore hope that the House will be convinced by the same arguments which convinced another place that the Clause, as it left this House, was unsatisfactory, and that we must reduce the opening here for people to gain benefits whom we did not really desire to enjoy the advantages of the Bill.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: This is a very short but very important point. It is a topic which should receive dispassionate examination. I am sorry that we have had a copious exchange of dubious compliments across the Floor of the House, which neither does credit to the House nor illuminates the point that we are investigating. I listened with great pleasure—as we always do—to the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). He has the exceptional gift of being able to make a solid speech on the smallest point that arises. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is that a dubious compliment?"] I personally forgive him because he usually introduces a good deal of interesting—
    554
    although also a certain amount of irrelevant—material.
    The point, as I see it, is whether we are to have a qualifying period or not. That seems a simple point. In other words, it is whether the conditions imposed by Clause I that the provision is to apply to a tenancy which expires within two years of the beginning of this Bill when it becomes an Act, or whether the period to apply is to be qualified in the terms of the Amendment and is to be fixed as from the 20th November, 1950. That seems to be the question. Is it to apply to all leases on expiry or is there to be that qualifying period, as from the 20th November, 1950, and to relate back to that date?
    I am not prepared to say that there is no ground for support to be given to the Amendment, in the sense that it is possible that this legislation may be used—I say "may," and I emphasise that—by people who want to speculate and operate in fag-end leases, but one has also to look at the other side of the scales. It is not the end of the matter merely because there happens to be the rare chance of someone speculating in these expiring leases. If we accept the principle that there is to be this extension to all the leases which it is proposed that this legislation should embrace, I do not think it is possible, without doing some injustice and probably greater injustice than would be avoided, to limit the period as suggested by the Amendment.
    The principle, as I understand it, is that long leases should have a certain amount of time added to them so that the Government can give consideration to the necessity of bringing in some legislation to deal with them. If that is so, why we should now seek to refine that position by making the date 20th November, 1950, rather than the date which is included in the provision in Clause 1 of the Bill, is very difficult to say. The ground, and the only ground, that has been put forward, certainly with some force, by the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), is this question of speculation in fag-end leases.
    Is there any real danger of that? The argument that was put forward gave no illustration that this speculation was likely to take place. No sufficient evidence was given that was worthy of acceptance.
    5.15 p.m.
    Sir P. Spens: Does the hon. and learned Member realise that the illustration I gave is actual fact? It is the case of a man who bought up about 18 leases of the fag-end character. He has never occupied the premises himself and has made as much rent out of the occupiers as he could. Now he goes in and occasionally occupies a room so as to qualify for the extra two years' extension.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: That is one case, but one must have regard to the scarcity of accommodation and it is putting the case much too high to think that there can be any likelihood of property being available for speculation of that kind. If we were living in normal times—when there would not be this scarcity—and we saw a danger of any general speculation of that kind there might be something to be said for the Amendment. The present circumstances of scarcity of property and of accommodation are such that there is no serious danger of this speculation substantially taking place at all.
    There are, too, cases on the other side of the line. It is a matter of balance of convenience. Suppose that a man has sublet his property for a short time and has gone abroad, as may well happen today. The crucial date, 20th November, 1950, might prevent him from taking advantage of the provisions of the Bill which is intended to protect him. No doubt if there were a serious risk of speculation in fag-end leases the Amendment would, as I have said, cut it out. I can see that, but it would also disqualify people who ought to come within the provisions of the Bill and be protected by them. But the apprehended danger of speculation in fag-end leases is not really likely to arise at all events to any serious extent, because of the scarcity of property and accommodation. Having regard to those circumstances the Amendment ought not to be accepted.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I was much struck by the extraordinary slenderness of the grounds which the Attorney-General offered to the House for disagreeing with the Amendment. He told us there were a great many deserving people who might be excluded from the protection of the Bill by the Amendment, but he gave only one particular instance. It is, therefore,
    556
    reasonable that we should examine that instance.
    It was, as I understand it, that before the publication of the Bill a person had purchased a lease with the intention of going into occupation of the premises himself at some date between the date of publication and the commencement of the Act. In fact, on the date of publication, a sub-tenant or the previous tenant was still in occupation. That, I take it, is the particular case. It was argued that the purchaser who had intended to go into occupation before the commencement of the operation of the Act would be excluded from the benefit which he might otherwise have enjoyed.
    I submit that that will be the case even if we do not amend the Bill, because the person who is in occupation of the premises at any time between the publication of the Bill and the commencement of operation of the Act has only to remain there. No effort of the superior tenant or the landlord can, as the Bill stands, get him out of possession, and he will be the person who will enjoy the protection. I do not believe that the one case given by the Attorney-General is valid.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) mentioned, another class of case was referred to in another place. That was that the tenant might happen to have been absent, for example in the Argentine, at the date of the publication of the Bill. But there are further Amendments which substitute the term "residing" for the term "living" in the Clause and I suppose that a person who is temporarily absent from leasehold premises by reason of absence abroad would still be found to be resident for the purposes of the Clause.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: If a person in a case like that had sub-let the premises for three or six months, what would then be the position?
    Mr. Powell: I should be of the opinion that even then he could claim to have been resident at that date—he would certainly be resident at that date for many purposes—and could show that he had been resident continuously from the date of publication to the date of commencement of the Act.
    On the other hand, the cases which are clearly excluded by the Amendment are cases of two classes which I should have

    557
    thought it would have been the desire of both sides of the House to exclude. The first class is where a lease has been purchased after the publication of the Bill. Where a person purchases a lease after the publication of the Bill, he does so with his eyes open to the effect of the Bill and there is no reason why the protection should be extended to him. The other case is that which has frequently been mentioned, where a sub-tenant is got out of possession by some means or other so that the head tenant may be in residence on the appointed day.
    In that case the sub-tenant has clearly been got out not for the purposes of providing a dwelling place for the tenant but simply for the purpose of getting the advantages of the Bill either by way of mesne profits on sub-lettings or by way of an extra two years' occupation under the low ground lease. The Amendment will thus not exclude any deserving type of case, but will exclude two categories which ought not to receive protection.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am certain that it will be the view of the House that we should come to a conclusion on this matter with reasonable rapidity. I frankly confess that I have no great enthusiasm for discussing these matters, because I was appointed a member of the Leasehold Committee in March, 1948, and we seem to have spent a great deal of the past three years in discussing this subject. However, this appears to be almost the final stage of the Bill in this House.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), made a reference to me. He also said something about suggestio falsi and suppresio veri. He is not at the moment present to hear my reply. I considered that he made a cheap and offensive remark in which he implied that in my Second Reading speech I spoke not according to what I believed but in accordance with instructions that I had received from the Conservative Central Office. That is a cheap and rather offensive remark to bandy across the Floor of the House. I adhere in every particular to the views I expressed in my Second Reading speech, which are the views I had formed for myself after cosiderable study of the problem.
    The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), said that the Measure
    558
    was the prelude to a better Bill. I agree that any other Bill would be better, for it is hard to conceive a worse Bill than this. The hon. Member talked of the Amendment as being a wrecking Amendment, as did the hon. Member for Oldham, West. That is completely untrue. Our attitude to this matter has been made clear again and again. We have great sympathy with tenants who have for many years been the holders of long leases which are now falling in.
    The Leasehold Committee put forward a constructive method of dealing with that situation. It was a unanimous recommendation and it was submitted to the Government in November, 1948, but the Government took no action on it. It does not lie in the mouth of any hon. Member supporting the Government to say that we did not desire to do anything to protect these people who, we agree, are put in a bad position on the termination of their leases.
    If we had had our way, these people would have had the protection of the Rent Restriction Acts which would have given them security of tenure on very reasonable terms. I would repeat that it was in November, 1948, that that unanimous recommendation was put to the Government and that the Government have taken no action whatever upon it. It was because of that that I have described the Government's attitude as one of cowardly evasion of the problem. I got a good deal of support for that from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). He does not altogether share my views on this matter, but he agreed that this was cowardly evasion by the Government.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I did not agree that it was cowardly evasion. What I said was that it was a very unsatisfactory Bill.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I did not mean to imply that the hon. and learned Gentleman had used the phrase "cowardly evasion." He was very much ruder about the Bill than that.
    Having dealt with the general attitude, I now come back to the merits of the Amendment. As to the suggestion that it is a wrecking Amendment, the Government's contention in another place was that, if there was to be a qualifying period,

    559
    this was the right qualifying period to have. It was also the Government's contention in another place that there was great substance in the arguments for the qualifying period but that on the whole it was considered that the balance of convenience came down against the qualifying period. That is a very different attitude from the suggestion that it is a wrecking Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester also put the matter in a very much more reasonable way when he endorsed what I have just put forward as the Government's attitude in another place.
    Let us consider upon what side of the scales the balance of convenience lies, and let us do so without any ill-temper and remarks about "wrecking Amendments." That brings me to what the Attorney-General said. I do not know whether it is a product of his arduous efforts on the Finance Bill, but he was guilty of forensic effrontery in the illustration which he put forward. He said that the Amendment should be rejected because it would prevent the advantage of the Act being given to a person who had bought the fag-end of a lease and had allowed a tenant to remain in occupation for a week or two after the qualifying date for reasons of clemency, and so on.
    If the Government's case is supported on those grounds, what about the case of a man who has bought a reversion intending to go into occupation? Has not he just as much right as had the man in the case which the Attorney-General put forward? If someone bought a reversion in order to occupy premises, why should he not be entitled to get possession as against someone who bought the fag-end of a lease?
    5.30 p.m.
    We are not contending that such a person should get possession, as against someone who had been in possession of a lease for 10, 20 or 30 years. That is quite a different proposition. We are
    contending that if after the publication of the Bill a person bought the fag-end of a lease in order to take advantage of its provisions, he is not entitled to preferential treatment as compared with the reversioner who bought the right to possession of the premises before the passing of the Bill.
    I do not understand the intellectual argument for the case of the Government. I thought that the whole idea of the Bill was to protect people on the termination of long leases, people who had been in possession for many years or at least a substantial period of time. But what intellectual argument is there for giving the protection to people who buy the last six or three months of a lease, well knowing that at the end of that time their occupation of the premises would normally come to an end? If they come along and enter into such a bargain deliberately to get an extension on the cheap, I should have thought they were entitled to no sympathy.
    Had there been a provision in the Bill for discretion, had there been some court which could have dealt with the matter on the ground of greater hardship—I am not saying I advocate that course—which would hold the balance of hardship as between the reversioner and the person who purchases the fag-end, that would be different. But there is no such loophole, and, therefore, the balance of convenience, so far as the view of my hon. Friends and myself is concerned, comes down on the side of the imposition of this qualifying period. I would remind the Committee once again that it is a much shorter qualifying period than was the one put forward by eight out of 10 members of the Leasehold Committee. In view of what I have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I hope that my hon. Friends will divide against the Government on this matter.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 219.

    Division No. 147.]

    AYES

    [5.32 p.m.

    Adams, Richard

    Baird, J.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Albu, A. H.

    Balfour, A.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Bartley, P.

    Boardman, H.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Booth, A.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Benson, G.

    Bottomley, A. G

    Ayles, W. H.

    Beswick, F.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)

    Hobson, C. R

    Pearson, A.

    Braddock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Holman, P.

    Peart, T. F.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Popplewell, E.

    Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

    Houghton, D.

    Porter, G.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hoy, J.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Burke, W. A.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Rankin, J.

    Burton, Miss E.

    Hynd, H (Accrington)

    Rees, Mrs. D

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Hynd, J. B (Attercliffe)

    Reeves, J.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Irvine, A. J (Edge Hill)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Carmichael, J.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Champion, A. J.

    Janner, B

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Jay, D. P. T

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Clunie, J.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N)

    Cocks, F. S.

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

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Coldrick, W.

    Jenkins, R. H.

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Collick, P.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Royle, C.

    Collindridge, F.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Cook, T. F.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Cooper, John (Deptford)

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham.

    Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Cove, W. G.

    Keenan, W.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Kenyon, C.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

    Slater, J.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    King, Dr. H. M

    Snow, J. W

    Daines, P.

    Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr E

    Sorensen, R W.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Kinley, J.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Kirkwood, Rt. Hon D

    Sparks, J. A

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Lang, Gordon

    Steele, T.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Deer, G.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

    Delargy, H. J

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Diamond, J.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Donnelly, D.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Logan, D. G.

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

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

    Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Dye, S.

    McAllister, G.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    MacColl, J. E

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Edelman, M.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    McGovern, J.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    McInnes, J.

    Timmons, J

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Mack, J. D.

    Tomney, F.

    Ewart, R.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Fernyhough, E

    McLeavy, F.

    Ungoed-Thomas, A L

    Field, Capt. W J

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Vernon, W. F

    Finch, H. J.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Viant, S. P

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Wade, D. W.

    Follick, M.

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

    Fool, M. M.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Wallace, H. W.

    Forman, J. C.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

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

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.

    Weitzman, D.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Messer, F.

    West, D G.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

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

    Gibson, C. W

    Mikardo, Ian

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Gilzean, A.

    Mitchison, G R

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Moeran, E. W.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

    Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Monslow, W.

    Wigg, G

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

    Moody, A. S.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Morgan, Dr. H B.

    Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

    Grey, C. F.

    Morley, R

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Morrison, Rt Hon H (Lewisham, S.)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mort, D. L

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Moyle, A.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)

    Grimond, J.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Gunter, R. J.

    Murray, J. D.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)

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

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Wise, F. J.

    Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Orbach, M.

    Woods, Rev. G. S.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Padley, W. E.

    Wyatt, W. L

    Hargreaves, A.

    Paget, R T.

    Yates, V. F.

    Hastings, S.

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

    Younger, Hon. K.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon Arthur (Tipton)

    Pannell, T. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Pargiter, G. A

    Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Hannan.

    Hewitson, Capt. M

    Paton, J.

    562

    563

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Nugent, G. R. H

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S.

    Oakshott, H. D

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Hay, John

    Odey, G. W.

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Head, Brig. A. H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon W. D

    Arbuthnot, John

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

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Heald, Lionel

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

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

    Heath, Edward

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

    Astor, Hon. M. L.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W W

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Baker, P. A. D.

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Pickthorn, K.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Pitman, I. J.

    Bell, R. M.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    Hollis, M. C.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham W.)

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig, O.

    Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Raikes, H. V.

    Birch, Nigel

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Redmayne, M.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Black, C. W.

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)

    Renton, D. L. M.

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

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

    Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

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

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hutchison, Col. James (Glasgow)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Bracken, Rt. Hon. B

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Braine, B. R.

    Jeffreys, General Sir George

    Russell, R. S.

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

    Jennings, R.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Savory, Prof. D. L

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Scott, Donald

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Kaberry, D.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Burden, Squadron Leader F. A

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Carson, Hon. E.

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Channon, H.

    Leather, E. H. C.

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

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H.

    Stevens, G. P

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Linstead, H. N.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Colegate, A.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

    Cornell, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Storey, S.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

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

    Low, A. R. W.

    Summers, G. S

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Teevan, T. L.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)

    de Chair, Somerset

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

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

    De la Bère, R.

    Mackeson, Brig, H. R.

    Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    McKibbin, A.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N

    Donner, P. W.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Thorp, Brig. R. A. F

    Drayson, G. B.

    Maclay, Hon. John

    Touche, G. C.

    Drewe, C.

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Turner, H F L

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Turton, R. H.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Dunglass, Lord

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley)

    Vane, W. M. F

    Duthie, W. S.

    Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

    Eccles, D. M.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

    Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Fort, R.

    Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Maude, John (Exeter)

    Wheatley, Maj. M. J. (Poole)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Maudling, R.

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D (Pollok)

    Mellor, Sir John

    Williams, Charles (Torquay)

    Gammans, L. D.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Gates, Maj. E. E.

    Monckton, Sir Walter

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Glyn, Sir Ralph

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Wills, G

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Mott-Radclyffe, C E.

    Wood, Hon R

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Nabarro, G.

    York, C

    Grimston, Robert (Westbury)

    Nicholson, G.

    Hart, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 12, leave out "is" and insert "has been."
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is consequential on the last Amendment. As that Amendment was negatived, I take it that this one will fall.
    Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 12, leave out "living" and insert "residing."
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is one of a long series of Amendments whereby the word "residing" is substituted for the word "living." When the matter was before the House of Commons in Committee, the Government resisted this substitution, and we still do not think that it makes any difference, but in another place it was strongly urged that the substitution should be made. As we intimated before, we have no very strong view about it, and therefore I suggest that the House should agree with the Amendment. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I indicate that the reasons for which I urge the House to accept the Amendment apply equally in the long series of similar Amendments which are to follow.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to make a few observations about the Amendment and the subsequent similar Amendments. When the Bill was before the House, on more than one occasion we suggested that the wording of the Bill would be improved by the use of the word "residing," which is in more regular use, I think, in statutes. Every time that that suggestion was, put forward, it was strenuously resisted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and a great deal of time was taken up in that resistance. Now, I am glad to say the Government have accepted this suggestion. I only point out in welcoming their acceptance of it that a great deal of time would have been saved had they accepted this reasonable suggestion from the Opposition when it was first put forward.
    Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 12, after "in" insert "a dwelling-house comprised in."
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    I can make similar observations with regard to this Amendment as I did with regard to the last Amendment. This kind of change occurs over and over again, and the reasons which, I suggest, should move the House to accept it apply in all cases. In our view, the change effected by the addition of the words "a dwelling-house comprised in" is very small. This alteration also was suggested during the Committee stage, and we expressed our preference for the wording as it stood before, but we did not express a strong view and we do not think that the change makes any substantial difference. Therefore, as it was persisted in in another place and hon. Members opposite still hold the view which they previously expressed that the Amendment improves the Bill, we do not desire to continue our opposition to it. Accordingly, I suggest that the House should adopt the Amendment.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: We put forward the proposal during the Committee stage that this new phrase should be used. Again, it was resisted by the then Attorney-General. We raised the matter again on Report stage. It was then again objected to. The right hon. and learned Gentleman now says that the Government did not have a strong view about it. It seems to me a pity that so much time should have been taken up in discussing something about which they did not have a strong view and which they are now prepared to accept.
    I welcome the Government's conversion to supporting an Amendment put forward with a view to improving the drafting and operation of this part of the Bill. I am glad that this has now happened, but again I point out that a great deal of time would have been saved if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had paid more attention to the Amendments moved by us during the Committee stage.
    Mr. Powell: I wonder whether, before the House agrees to the Amendment, the Attorney-General would confirm exactly what is its effect? As I understand it, it means that the premises to which the residential qualification applies must be a dwelling-house, but that it is the whole property comprised in the tenancy to which the renewal of the tenancy applies.

    567
    If so, it would seem to follow that the Amendment prevents a tenant from, for example, moving a camp bed into one room in a block of offices and thereby obtaining a renewal of the tenancy of the block of offices. It does not, on the other hand, as I understand it, prevent him from occupying, for example, the caretaker's house in a factory and thereby obtaining a renewal of the lease of the entire factory property comprised in the tenancy. In effect, therefore, the Amendment does not restrict the protection of the Bill to dwelling-houses.
    The Attorney-General: If I may have leave to speak again, in reply to a question which has been put, the effect, as I previously intimated, does not really alter the position as it was before, except to a very slight extent. In regard to moving to the caretaker's premises, supposing a factory were owned by a partnership, if all the owners and their families moved into the premises they could, no doubt, secure the premises. I do not know how many there would be and it might be a little uncomfortable. If it were a company they could not do so because they could not in a sense "reside"; but, in the case of a single individual, if he were so minded as to turn out the caretaker, that could be done before.
    Mr. Charles Williams: I wish to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller). We welcome the fact that the Government have at last agreed to accept this Amendment, but I think we back benchers have a right to protest, as we are under very great pressure on our time, that the Government seem to be deliberately wasting our time, a thing I have never done myself and would never dream of doing. [Interruption.] I do think that, after those cheers, hon. Members opposite ought to get up and help me on Amendments which they know are necessary and which would save time and not waste time in an endless and, as usual, perfectly senseless way.

    Clause 2.—(PROVISION WHERE TENANT HOLDING OVER AFTER EXPIRY OF LONG TENANCY.)
    Lord Amendment: In page 2, line 5, after "continuation" insert:
    "or in the case of a tenancy expiring on or after the twentieth day of November, nineteen
    568
    hundred and fifty, at all times during the period beginning with that date and ending with the date of continuation."
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is on a par with the Amendment we discussed at some length on Clause 1. In other words, it has very much the same effect in relation to Clause 2 as the previous Amendment had in relation to Clause 1. As the House has already rejected the analogous Amendment to Clause 1, it should in my submission equally reject this one, which is complementary.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in saying that this Amendment raises the same issue as we have discussed already this afternoon. Our views in regard to that Amendment remain exactly the same as they were. We are not in the least convinced by the arguments advanced by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, but, as we have already debated it once this afternoon, we do not propose to debate it again, and, as we have already voted against it once this afternoon, we do not propose to vote against it again. In view of my remarks, I hope we shall not get any more cheap jibes from the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) that we are trying to obstruct the passage of this Bill.
    Lords Amendment made: In page 2, line 10, leave out from first "the" to "in" in line 11 and insert "dwelling-house."
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, as a consequential Amendment to the Bill, in page 2, line 11, to leave out "in question."
    I am informed that this is the first occasion since 1918 on which a Private Member has moved a consequential Amendment to a Lords Amendment. I make no apology, however, for doing so, because if the Government had been more forthcoming at an earlier stage of the proceedings on this Bill, the tidying-up process to which my Amendment is intended to contribute could have been carried out in the place where it more normally occurs.
    The point of the Amendment is this. The words in the Bill as it stands are

    569
    "the property or the part thereof in question." In that phrase the words "in question" relate exclusively to the words "the part thereof." They do not relate to the words "the property." Consequently, when we substitute the word "dwelling-house" for the expression "property or the part thereof" we should also omit the words "in question," which have thereby become meaningless and otiose.
    I should not have gone to the length of moving this Amendment, since the words "in question" perhaps do no harm, but for the fact that in another part of the Bill they have been omitted. In page 7, line 4, the words "in question" are omitted by an Amendment we are later to consider. It is therefore, in the interests of tidiness and as a consequence of the Amendment to which it is suggested the House should agree that I move to omit the words "in question."
    The Attorney-General: Obviously this is a matter on which very little can be said on one side or the other, but I hope the House will not leave out these words. They do add clarity to the Bill to some extent. There is very little indeed one way or the other, but I advise the House not to accept the Amendment proposed.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 5.—(RESTRICTIONS ON ENFORCEMENT OF COVENANTS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 16, leave out from "the" to "and" in line 21, and insert:
    "Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act, 1938, shall, irrespective of the rateable value of the property comprised in the tenancy, apply to the tenancy as it applies to a lease of which five years or more of the term remain unexpired;".
    6.0 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is a matter of somewhat more substance. The effect of this Amendment will be to substitute for the provisions in Clause 5 of the Bill, which prevent a landlord from exercising his right to forfeiture and re-entry in the event of a breach by the tenant during the continued tenancy, a different kind of protection based upon an adapted version
    570
    of the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act, 1938.
    We have various objections to that. Broadly speaking, the effect of making that change would be that the landlord, if he wished to forfeit the tenancy during this continued period under the Bill could go to a county court and if he could establish various propositions with regard to the premises before the county court judge he could get an order evicting the tenant. He could, amongst other things, have an order made in his favour if he could establish
    "that the immediate remedying of the breach in question is requisite for preventing substantial diminution in the value of his reversion, or that the value thereof has been substantially diminished by the breach;".
    At first sight it might be said that there is something to commend the view that that change should be made. I would urge upon the House the consideration that there are very serious objections indeed to it, and that the present form of the Clause in the Bill is very much more in the interests of everyone concerned. If one substitutes the provisions of the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act for the provisions in the Bill one would run a risk of imposing lawsuits upon the people who come within the ambit of the Bill.
    In the event of the landlord wishing to obtain the premises it would mean that he would go to the court and there would be litigation which would hang as a burden over the tenant. Often a tenant would vacate the premises simply because he would not dare the risk of expense of litigation to determine whether the conditions prescribed in the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act had been fulfilled or not. I suppose that we would find tenants leaving through sheer fear of the expense which would be involved in litigation which might result in the event of differences between them and the landlord.
    We had provided, in the Bill as it stood, for what seems to us to be a much more satisfactory procedure. It cannot be emphasised too much that this is a standstill Measure. It is designed to do no more than to keep the position in statu quo over the two years which are specified. As the Bill was worded when it left this House and went to another place the landlord's remedies, with certain exceptions, were suspended over the

    571
    period of the two years during which the tenancy is to continue.
    But he is not left in a position in which he cannot protect himself and his interest in the premises. What we wanted to make sure of was that the protection given to the tenant was not illusory. We suspended the remedies that he would otherwise have. It is common knowledge that if a landlord is given the right to go in in the event of establishing a breach of covenant to repair, for example, it is going far, in the case of a great deal of leasehold property, to deprive the tenant of any protention. So the effect of the Bill would be almost entirely frustrated.
    In the previous discussion we had, we recognised in the course of the debate that we had not afforded sufficient protection to the landlord. In order to protect him we inserted Clause 6, under which if there really is a case of serious disrepair he can go in and do the repairs himself. He cannot recover the cost during the two years; he has to wait until that period is over, but we are not here dealing with lessees on the one hand and landlords on the other. One has to weigh their interests as fairly as one can, one against the other. It seemed to us that we had struck the right balance in giving the landlord the remedy to see to it that his property did not seriously depreciate, suspending of course his right to recover the cost if he exercised that remedy.
    Apart from that, except in the case of immoral user or failure to pay rent or, if a further Amendment is accepted, rates he is not to exercise his right to forfeiture. The change made in another place would throw the whole of that approach overboard. It would mean that a simple and automatic procedure would be totally discarded. It would, with very little advantage to either party, substitute for the procedure in the Bill the prospect of what might be expensive and difficult litigation.
    That must always produce a measure of uncertainty. It means that there is something in the nature of a threat hanging over a tenant who is unable to risk the cost of expensive litigation. That is what the effect of the change would be, and when one considers the provisions of the Bill as they stand it is difficult to see that
    572
    there would by such a change be any substantial advantage to the landlord beyond that which he had in the Bill as it stood when it left this House.
    The principles of the Bill have been fully canvassed and discussed previously, and the House is in full possession of the Government's intentions about Clause 4 and Clause 5, as they were previously, and it would probably not be of assistance to the House if I traversed the whole ground which we went over. For the reasons I have given, I confess briefly and I hope adequately, I hope that the House will not accept this change.
    Sir Walter Monckton: I shall try to cover the ground which I have to cover with the same admirable brevity as the Attorney-General. I am sorry that he takes the view he does of this Amendment. He said earlier today and repeated just now that this was a piece of standstill legislation to preserve the position until a more comprehensive Bill can deal with the substance of the matter.
    The first observation I make is that if one is trying to obtain a standstill it may well be that one will say, "In order that the standstill may take effect, I must extend the period during which the rights of the parties will remain." But there is nothing inherent in a standstill arrangement which makes it essential to alter the conditions upon which the lessee holds from the landlord. The first consideration with which one starts is the desire to extend the period but it is not otherwise desirable during the intervening period to make a change in the relationship of the parties.
    Therefore, prima facie if we can satisfy the House that the remedy which has been suggested in another place is equally efficacious for the purpose and does not disturb the existing conditions it is to be preferred. There are other reasons which I shall suggest in a few moments for preferring it. But that is the first one. If we are genuinely seeking to secure no more than that the period shall be extended and that there shall be a standstill we should in fairness see so far as we can that the conditions are not otherwise changed.
    It may well be said—I wish to deal frankly with what is no doubt the point of the Clause—that if we make no provision it may be that by exercising a right

    573
    of re-entry and forfeiture for, to take an obvious example, non-repair or by bringing an action for damages during the standstill period the landlord will really defeat the purpose of the Bill by putting an end to the period of the tenancy. I fully recognise that, and would only say about it that there is no reason to think, as anyone who has read the Report and evidence will see, that that is likely to be frequently invoked in the case of occupying lessees.
    After all, one finds a tenant still in a dilapidated house in spite of any provisions which might entitle the landlord to enter. What is being said is, "Let those conditions continue but we will do something more in case the unlikely happens and the landlord who has not in the past taken advantage of a breach of covenant for repairs decides to do so." Which of the two remedies ought to be applied? In the one case, the case for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken, we are altering the terms. We are saying, "You shall not bring an action for damages, for breach of covenant of repair. You shall no longer have your right of re-entry. That is simply taken from you."
    The alternative, which is that put forward in the Amendment we have adopted, is the precedent used in 1938, which does not hold out the terrors the right hon. and learned Gentleman would find if this were the sort of case which would go to the High Court and encourage great expense. It would take people to the county court in certain events. But what I am anxious to satisfy the House about is that it would be an effective remedy. It would prevent the landlord, if he were so disposed, from taking advantage of the right of re-entry or claim to damages for breach of covenant, in such a way as to disrupt and destroy the purpose of the Bill.
    If this Amendment is accepted, what does he have to do if he wishes to do that? He has first to go to the court; he gets the advantage of the provision of the Act of 1939 adapted, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, to this case. It is only first of all in a limited number of cases that he may make such a claim. It is not because there is a breach of covenant, but because there is a breach of covenant which falls within one class of case to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred and took no doubt from the first Section of the Act of 1938;
    574
    when there is some immediate danger of substantial diminution to the value of the reversion. If there is an immediate danger of that sort, of substantial likelihood of diminution of the reversion, we are trying to hold the scales fairly between the landlord and lessee and saying it is only a standstill arrangement. That is a matter which the House may think is proper to be taken into account before the appropriate tribunal.
    Secondly, it is said that if non-compliance with the covenant to repair will involve an infringement of the bylaws, that is another example under which it might well be right that the landlord's remedy should not be taken away and that what he wants it for is to comply with the law. There is another case, the case in which the interest involved is not merely the interest of the landlord and the lessee, but the interest of another occupier of part of the house. In those circumstances the case falls within these five classes and can be taken to the court.
    The fourth case is where the expense of remedying the covenant which has been broken is small in comparison with what the expense would be if the matter were postponed. The fifth case is where there are special circumstances which make it just and equitable if this Amendment were accepted. If the landlord wishes to exert the remedy which at present he has, he must bring it within one of those five classes. Having done so, he still has to get the leave of the county court to bring the remedy into force.
    I suggest that is a wholly adequate and proper way of dealing with the matter. It holds the balance between the interests of the various parties concerned and finally says, "If you are in doubt, you may go to the county court." That is the court which I might call the poor man's court, and which does not involve him in these enormous expenses. That is the remedy adopted in 1938 which we suggest should be adopted now.
    It has three advantages. First, it meets a case which ought to be met to prevent the purpose of the Act from being destroyed. Second, it means that in those special classes of case in which repairs ought to be carried out, and in which there is no reason, as I suggest, why the tenant should have relief from the covenant which he has entered into, it is more likely (a) that the repairs will

    575
    be done, and (b) they will be done in carrying out the covenant which is the covenant of the lessee.
    Third, if what the House genuinely desires to do is no more than to ensure that there is a period, I will not say of probation, a period of reflection, before the policy is developed which will result in a major Act, it does mean that it is a genuine standstill which will extend the period but does not alter the conditions. For those reasons I hope that either the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that view, or that the House will insist upon it.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The Attorney General referred to the duty of care owed by the House to landlords and tenants and in that, of course, he spoke correctly. The House does owe them a duty of care; but in addition to that duty of care I suggest that a high duty of care, especially at the present time, is owed to the buildings themselves. The House must make sure that this Bill does not result in a still worse state in respect of the repair to houses than already exists in this country at the present time.
    The attention of the country has been drawn very emphatically of late to the continuing disrepair of many houses and the very urgent aspect of that in the national economy. Since we appear to be anchored down to a maximum rate of construction of new houses of 200,000 a year, it is obviously imperative that no step be taken which either discourages repair or fails to give active encouragement to repair. I wish for a moment to look at this Amendment and the Clause from the point of view of the degree to which that duty is discharged.
    Clause 5 escapes the remedies of the landlord for the duration of the extended leases. Clause 6 gives to the landlord the right to carry out repairs but postpones his right to recovery in respect of that to a future which is necessarily uncertain, having regard to the tenor of speeches made by so many hon. Gentlemen opposite on the wider question of leasehold enfranchisement and so on. The Bill removes the duty to repair and gives the qualified right to repair divorced from the incentive of interest in it.
    576
    In my submission the Amendment goes a very fair way to meeting the position. Some regard will be had to the position of repairs if that Amendment is carried and very considerable safeguards are given to the tenant who, as the House is aware, already has a large measure of safeguard under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, and under the Law of Property Act. So far as this particular procedure goes, my hon. and learned Friend has catalogued the various cases in which alone the landlord would have any right.
    What it amounts to, in summary, is, I suggest, that those cases set out in the subsection to Section 1 of the 1938 Act are really cases in which the fabric of the building is concerned, and is immediately concerned. If that be so, those are the classes of case in which it would be dangerous for there to be any encouragement to non-repair. As at present drafted, the Bill shirks this problem and, in so doing, does a disservice to the interests of landlord and tenant alike in the long view, because it is in the interests of all citizens, especially at present, that there should be a high standard of repair. This Amendment goes some way towards putting that position right, and for that reason it should commend itself to the House.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hope that we shall hear some more from the Government Front Bench about this Amendment. It really is the most important subject that we shall be discussing today in connection with this Bill. It is not a topic which ought to arouse a party division or dispute. If the Attorney-General paid attention to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Sir W. Monckton), he must be convinced that there is some great force in the argument he advanced for favouring the system proposed in another place in preference to the system grafted on to this Bill after its introduction.
    I should like to summarise the arguments which the Attorney-General advanced. They were three in number. First, he contended that this alteration would mean a substantial diminution of the protection given to the tenant. Secondly, he said that it would lead to landing lawsuits upon people and perhaps to tenants leaving their premises through fear of lawsuits. Thirdly, he repeated what he has said so often, that this was a standstill measure. As has been pointed out, this

    577
    is not a standstill measure if we upset the equilibrium which now exists.
    In discussing this subject—and we have discussed it more than once in this House—the right hon. and learned Attorney-General will recollect that we have never sought to put forward any proposal whatever which would enable the landlord to find a way round the two-year extension. I am glad to find that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), is finding that this debate is interesting and that he has put down the literature which he was looking at some time ago. We have never sought to leave a loophole open to enable a bad landlord to defeat the main intention of this Measure. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree. We have always sought to avoid that.
    At the same time, there is the other danger that by this so-called standstill Measure the Government are giving some tenants—and there are some bad tenants just as there are some bad landlords—liberty to let the premises they are occupying depreciate very considerably in repair. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must admit that that can happen.
    We know from recent publications of the serious depreciation which has taken place in the repair of houses. Surely, we do not want to do anything which may lead to that being accentuated. Surely, it cannot be in the national interest even to appear to facilitate that happening. So, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bristol, West said, one wants to strike a balance here. One wants to stop any loophole and at the same time one wants to try to avoid the danger that the premises will fall into disrepair in the next two years.
    We pressed this upon the Government, and all they have done is to add a Clause making it possible for a landlord to effect repairs at his own expense for which of course, the tenant is primarily liable. I should be glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could deal with this point. That may enable a local authority to serve a notice on the landlord to compel him, at his own expense, to execute repairs for which the tenant is liable. I say that it may have that result. I should be interested to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees.
    Apart from that, it seems somewhat improbable in these days when another
    578
    Bill—which, according to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West is likely to be more radical in its character—is hanging over the head of the landlord, that the landlord will incur expenses of this character in the next two years. That factor must be taken into account. I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, even at this late stage, he should think again about this matter.
    If the Amendment were accepted, I feel sure, in view of the arguments advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bristol, West, that we should not in fact diminish the protection which the tenant ought to have. The Government would not be providing a way round for the landlord, because the landlord has, in every case, before he enforces any liability to repair, to obtain the leave of the court. The court would not grant that leave if they came to the conclusion that all the landlord was seeking to do was to evade the Act.
    That stipulation would give a greater security. If the system proposed in another place were adopted, it would not only suffice to give the protection that is required but it would also make this much more of a standstill Measure and it would play a part in preventing unnecessary deterioration of property. I hope that the Attorney-General, or someone else from the Government Front Bench, will endeavour to deal with the arguments advanced in support of this Amendment and, in particular, with the powerful and cogent speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bristol, West.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in moving that we disagree with their Lordships' Amendment, really brushed on one side the case for this Amendment. He treated it far too lightly. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will try to deal with the matter seriously now. But, even more than that, even at this late stage, I can only wish that he would give effect to the Amendment and withdraw his Motion. I am sure that if he did so there would be a great improvement in the Bill and it would not in any way diminish the proper protection which it is intended to give to tenants.
    As it is, under this Bill now, a man has only to reside for 24 hours before the lease expires to get an extension for

    579
    two years at a rent fixed perhaps 99 years ago. Now it is being said by the Government that he has the further advantage that he can let the property go into disrepair, in breach of his covenant, in the knowledge that no action can be taken to enforce that liability. Even though it is desirable to keep the house in repair, no action can be taken to enforce that liability until after the lease has expired. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot meet us on this question, then we can only show our dissatisfaction and disagreement in the Division Lobby.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Molson: I am surprised that the Attorney-General has not risen to deal with the speeches of my hon. and learned Friends. We had only a brief and cursory introduction to this debate from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, after which my hon. and learned Friends have dealt with the whole of the merits of this case. I hope we may be told by the Government why they are not prepared to accept this Amendment which was inserted in another place. Both on the Committee stage and on Report, we heard from the Attorney-General that he was disposed to hold the balance evenly between landlords and tenants, to ensure that tenants were given reasonable security, and also that the Clauses of this Bill should not offer any opportunity for abuses of the protection that was given to them.
    As a result of the Amendment inserted in the Bill in another place, a very considerable degree of protection is given to the tenants against any of those actions in regard to the obligation to repair in the terms of their leases. Here is a case which provides that it shall be the county court judge who shall decide whether there is a reasonable ground for the claim made by the landlord, and it is only fair that, when the county court judge, having considered the whole merits of the case, decides that it is reasonable that this remedy should be provided to the landlord, action can be taken. It seems, therefore, that the Lords have taken carefully into account the purpose which the Government had in mind, and I cannot understand why the Government continue to resist this provision.
    580
    The Attorney-General has said on a number of occasions that he is not actuated by any malice against landlords, but that he is only anxious to ensure that this is a genuine standstill Bill and that the rights of both parties shall be reasonably preserved until the Government have had an opportunity of introducing permanent legislation on this subject. It therefore appears as if, without any departure from any of the principles which the Attorney-General laid down both in Committee and on Report stage, that he could accept this Amendment, and I hope he will do so, or otherwise explain why he persists in refusing it.
    Mr. Marlowe: I rise only because I am rather disappointed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not risen in his place to answer the very cogent arguments put forward in support of the Lords Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did speak earlier on, but since then there has been the very forceful case made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Sir W. Monckton), and I think that the Attorney-General himself would agree that it was a carefully marshalled argument and one which deserves a reply.
    I appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would require the permission of the House in order to speak again, but I can assure him that, if he is anxious to do so, we on this side of the House would make no protest against his asking for that indulgence. I cannot help feeling that what has happened in this case is that the merits of the argument have not been weighed. What has happened has been that the prejudices of hon. Gentlemen opposite have been allowed to decide the argument.
    The Attorney-General The Attorney-General indicated dissent.
    Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, or, to make that clear for the record, indicates a negative. I cannot help feeling that that is subconsciously what is happening, but I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not consciously allow himself to be influenced by prejudices in that way. We are faced with the position that the Government were defeated on this matter in another

    581
    place, and I have an uncomfortable feeling that the real basis of the attitude adopted by the Government today is only the fact that they were defeated in another place and must therefore restore the status quo before the Bill went to another place.
    There is also the underlying prejudice which is felt by hon. Members opposite that this proposal is somehow or other favourable to the landlords, who are always regarded as the traditional enemies of hon. Members opposite. As a matter of fact, it is neither a sin nor a crime to be a landlord, and this Bill is intended to arrive at something like equity as between landlord and tenant. I should have thought that the Attorney-General would have been very ready to support that position and to have replied to the arguments put to him. I express my disappointment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not replied to the arguments, and I hope that, even at this late hour, he will still do so.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: I wish to add one more point to the admirable case made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Sir W. Monckton). I feel quite certain that, as many of my hon. and learned Friends have said, if the Attorney-General will seek the leave of the House to make a further statement, that leave will be readily given to him in order that he may reply to the very cogent points which have been put to him.
    The sole point to which I wish to draw attention is one made by the Attorney-General in his first speech on this matter. He said that the Government realised that the Clause as originally drafted would have involved an injustice to the landlord, and that that was the reason for putting in Clause 6. The point which I want to put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that Clause 6 is
    not an adequate remedy in a very common type of case. That is the case where a lack of repair is known to the tenant, but is not known to the landlord. I think the whole House will agree that it is very much in the public interest that houses should be kept in repair, and that unnecessary deterioration should be avoided.
    Let me give the simple example of dry-rot to illustrate the point—[Laughter.]—I appeal even to the most frivolous to take note of the example which I am giving. Hon. Members know that rapid deterioration of property results from dry-rot if it is not treated promptly, and in an expert way. It is perfectly true that, under Clause 6, the landlord can inspect the house through surveyors and others, and may detect the incipient trouble, but we all know that these professional men are very much overworked. Nor is it desirable to harry the tenant in the two years' period of protection given him by the Bill, but if he knows of this lack of repair, why should he be relieved of all obligation to deal with it? The resulting deterioration of the property is wholly contrary to the public interest. Even if the landlord had become aware of the trouble, what chance would he have of ever recovering the cost of the repairs which he had done from the tenant after his departure at the end of the two years?
    The main point which I wish to put to the Attorney-General is the question why, in a serious case of lack of repair known to the tenant, and, by the nature of the case, unknown to the landlord, the tenant should be relieved of all liability to deal with it.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 198.

    Division No. 148.]

    AYES

    [6.40 p.m.

    Adams, Richard

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Albu, A. H.

    Benton, G.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Burke, W. A.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Burton, Miss E.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Boardman, H.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Bacon, Mill Alice

    Bowdon, H. W.

    Carmichael, J.

    Baird, J.

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Champion, A. J

    Balfour, A.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Chetwynd, G. R

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

    Clunie, J

    Bartley, P.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Cocks, F. S

    Coldrick, W.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Rankin, J

    Collick, P.

    Janner, B.

    Rees, Mrs. D.

    Collindridge, F.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Reeves, J.

    Cook, T. F.

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

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Cooper, John (Deptford)

    Jenkins, R. H.

    Richards, R.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Cove, W. G.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Daines, P.

    Keenan, W.

    Royle, C.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Kenyon, C.

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Kinley, J.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Simmons, C. J

    Deer, G.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Slater, J.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Snow, J. W

    Diamond, J.

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N)

    Sorensen, R W

    Donnelly, D.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon John (W. Bromwich)

    Logan, D. G

    Sparks, J. A.

    Dye, S.

    Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

    Steele, T.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    McAllister, G.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    MacColl, J E.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    McGovern, J.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Ewart, R.

    McInnes, J.

    Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mack, J. D.

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Field, Capt. W. J.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Finch, H. J.

    McLeavy, F.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Follick, M

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Foot, M. M.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Forman, J. C.

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

    Timmons, J

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Tomney, F.

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Turner-Samuels, M

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Gilzean, A.

    Mellish, R. J

    Vernon, W. F.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Messer, F.

    Viant, S. P.

    Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Wallace, H. W

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)

    Mikardo, Ian.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon D. R.

    Milchison G. R.

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

    Grey, C. F.

    Moeran, E. W.

    Weitzman, D.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Monslow, W.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Moody, A. S.

    West, D. G.

    Gunter, R. J.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

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

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Morley, R.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)

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

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Mort, D. L.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Moyle, A.

    Wigg, G.

    Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C A B

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Murray, J. D.

    Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

    Hardy, E. A.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Hargreaves, A.

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

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Hastings S.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Orbach, M.

    Williams, Rt. Hon Thomas (Don V'lly)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon Arthur (Tipton)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Padley, W. E.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Hewitson, Capt. M

    Paling, Rt. Hon W. (Dearne Valley)

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Holman, P.

    Panned, T. C

    Wise, F. J.

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon A

    Houghton, D.

    Paton, J.

    Woods, Rev. G S

    Hoy, J.

    Pearson, A.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Popplewell, E.

    Yates, V F.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Porter, G.

    Younger, Rt Hon K

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Proctor, W. T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins

    Irvine, A J. (Edge Hill)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J M

    Black, C. W.

    Alport, C. J. M

    Baldwin, A. E

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

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N)

    Banks, Col. C.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Bell, R. M.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

    Arbuthnot, John

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Braine, B. R.

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

    Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

    Astor, Hon. M. L

    Birth, Nigel

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Baker, P. A. D

    Bishop, F. P

    Browne. Jack (Govan)

    584

    585

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T

    Hutchison, Col. James (Glasgow)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Burden, F. A.

    Jeffreys, General Sir George

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Jennings, R.

    Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)

    Carson, Hon. E.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Channon, H.

    Kaberry, D.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Russell, R. S.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Colegate, A.

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Savory, Prof D. L.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A. H.

    Scott, Donald

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

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Crowder, Capt John (Finchley)

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Stanley, Capt. Hn. Richard (N. Fylde)

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Stevens, G. P.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Lyttelton, Rt Hon. O.

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

    Drewe, C.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)

    McCorquodale, Rt Hon M. S.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Duncan, Capt J. A. L

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R

    Storey, S.

    Duthie, W. S.

    McKibbin, A.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Eccles, D. M.

    Maclay, Hon. John

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Summers, G. S.

    Fisher, Nigel

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)

    Teevan, T. L.

    Gage, C. H.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)

    Gammans, L. D.

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Glyn, Sir Ralph

    Maude, Angus (Ealing S)

    Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Maude, John (Exeter)

    Thorneycroft Peter (Monmouth)

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Maudling, R.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Mellor, Sir John

    Thorp, Brig. R. A F

    Grimston, Robert (Westbury)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Touche, G. C.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Turton, R. H.

    Hay, John

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Head, Brig. A H.

    Nabarro, G.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt Hon. Sir Cuthbert

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H P.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Heald, Lionel

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Heath, Edward

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Hicks-Beach, Maj W W

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon W. D

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

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

    Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    White, Balter (Canterbury)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Williams, Charles (Torquay)

    Hollis, M. C.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

    Pickthorn, K.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Wills, G.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Wood, Hon. R

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

    Prior-Palmer, Brig O.

    York, C

    Hurd, A. R.

    Raikes, H. V.

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

    Redmayne, M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment last disagreed to, in page 4, line 20, to leave out from "to," to "damages," in line 21, and to insert:
    "bring any action against the tenant for."
    When the Bill left the House of Commons on its way to another place it was in the form in which it is today,—Bill 45—but in another place the words which I now seek to insert into the Bill were introduced by an Amendment which was there moved. The consequence of rejecting the last Amendment made by the noble Lords in another place is that this change, which was there introduced, is no longer in the Bill, and unless I
    586
    move this Amendment now the Bill would resume the form which it had when it previously left the House of Commons.
    I therefore move that the change made in another place should again be made. The object is to remove a certain ambiguity in the words
    "to enforce any right against the tenant"
    which appeared in the Bill when it left the House of Commons.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for explaining why he has moved the Amendment, but I think he could have stated it a little more clearly. After all, that is all we are concerned with. On

    587
    reading it for the first time I thought it was a purely drafting Amendment, but I could not see its object. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could explain what is the ambiguity which this change of words is intended to eliminate. It is just as well that hon. Members should be able to follow what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking them to do.
    The Attorney-General: If I may have the permission of the House to reply, the object of the Bill is as follows. The wording of the Bill as it left the House of Commons:
    "to enforce any right against the tenant,"
    in line 20, was ambiguous. The words might be construed as preventing the landlord from enforcing by execution a judgment for damages which he had obtained in an action begun before the commencement of the Act and before the period referred to in Clause 5 (3). It is to remove that ambiguity that I seek to make the change.
    Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 26, after "rent" insert "or rates."
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The object of the Amendment is as follows. Where the tenant, under a covenant, is liable to pay rates, then the rates should be treated as being on exactly the same footing as rent. Therefore, the exclusion of the suspension of the tenant's rights in respect of failure to pay rent should apply equally to failure to pay rates.
    Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 29, leave out from "ground" to end of line 31 and insert:
    "of the use of the property or part thereof for illegal or immoral purposes, unless (in the case of a past such use) there has since been a change in the ownership of the tenancy."
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The object of this Amendment is to bring it about that in the case of illegal or immoral user taking place before the commencement of the operation of the Act the landlord's rights to re-enter should
    588
    not be suspended unless the illegal or immoral user was committed at a date when some previous tenant was in occupation. The existing tenant cannot be held responsible for the conduct of the previous tenant, but if the same tenant is still in occupation it is thought that the landlord's rights in the case of illegal or immoral user should not be suspended.
    Mr. Higgs: We are glad to see that this little addition has been made to the Clause, but before we pass from the Clause there is something which should be put on the record. When the Bill was first introduced into the House the tenant had only two obligations during this interim period. One was to pay his rent and the other was to keep the premises insured. There was not even an obligation to refrain from using the house for illegal or immoral purposes.
    We put down a comprehensive Amendment on the Committee stage which the Government resisted, but they undertook to move an Amendment of their own, and this they did. The effect of it was that the tenant was penalised in respect of such user only after this Bill came into operation. The Amendment to which we are now about to agree makes it perfectly clear that it is not this Bill which prevents such user, but that it has always been so.
    Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 38, at end insert:
    "(3) Where the landlord is prevented by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section from bringing an action for damages in respect of anything done by the tenant in breach of a term or condition of the tenancy, a county court as well as the High Court shall have jurisdiction to grant an injunction to restrain the doing of that thing."
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This House is indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) for this Amendment. He drew the attention of the House and my Department in particular to a matter which had been overlooked—that unless there was a claim for damages the remedy by way of injunction could not be sought in a county court. This Amendment enables a landlord not merely to go into the High Court and resort to the more expensive procedure, but makes it possible for him to ask for his injunction in the

    589
    county court, even if he does not make a claim for damages. That will save expense on both sides and be in the interests of both parties.
    Sir P. Spens: I am glad to see this subsection inserted into the Bill. It will help everybody. I have always thought that it was a most unfortunate thing that poor people should not get an injunction in the county court unless there was some other substantial claim. Now we have a precedent in what will be an Act of this House by which poor people can get an injunction without having to ask for anything else. I can only hope that we shall see it become general law in every other case very soon.
    Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 16, at end insert:
    "(5) The reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section to the bringing of an action against the tenant for damages in respect of a failure to comply with a term or condition of the tenancy shall be construed as including a reference to the bringing of an action for the recovery from the tenant of expenditure incurred by or recovered from the landlord in consequence of such a failure on the part of the tenant, and the reference in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section to a judgment or order for the payment of damages shall be construed accordingly.
    (6) References in this section to the bringing of an action include references to the setting up in any proceedings of a claim by way of counterclaim."
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment, which is more lengthy than previous Amendments, does not amount to very much, because it is very largely drafting. It transposes what was previously Clause 6 (4) into Clause 5 and it also makes a slight change in the language in order to remove ambiguity. As Clause 6 (4) was previously worded there was some doubt as to whether the provisions of Clause 5 (3) were made applicable in relation to proceedings brought by a landlord between the date of introduction and the date of the commencement of the Bill. This Amendment removes the ambiguity. It is a question of little more than re-arrangement and of coupling with it a change in the language to remove that slight ambiguity.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I have followed what the right hon. and learned
    590
    Gentleman said about this but, as it originally stood, I do not think there was in any other part of the Bill any prohibition on setting up a claim against a tenant by way of a counter-claim. I do not think I am wrong about that, but I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he thinks it is right that there should be such a prohibition against the landlord.
    May I put this point to him? Supposing a tenant sues a landlord for a substantial sum. It seems very hard, if a tenant embarks on an action like that against a landlord, that the landlord shall not be able to counter-claim, perhaps for a like amount or for a less amount; so that judgment could be given against the landlord on the tenant's claim for a substantial sum but the landlord would have to wait until the expiry of two years before having any opportunity of recovering on a counter-claim which, ex hypothesi, is one he is bound to establish. It seems to me at first sight to be somewhat inequitable, and I am wondering whether it would not be better to leave out subsection (6). I should be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would deal with that.
    7.0 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: With the permission of the House I would add a few words. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), mentioned the case in which the landlord is being sued for a sum of money. On the other hand, one has also to consider the kind of case in which, for example, the tenant is suing the landlord for breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment. I do not want to suggest that there is any ill faith on the part of anybody, but, unfortunately, one has to deal with the possibility of bad faith on both sides, on the part of the landlord and of the tenant.
    It would be possible for a landlord to break the covenant to give quiet enjoyment and force the tenant to take an action against him, and he could prevent his so doing if he could then, by way of counter-claim, bring a claim for forfeiture in response to the tenant's action against him. He could not be prevented from doing that, and the two years' suspension of right would not be

    591
    operative. He really could get a tenant out.
    There is a certain amount to be said on both sides, but that kind of case has to be borne in mind, for the object, as has been said, I am afraid, ad nauseam in this case, is to keep the status quo for two years; and, on balance, it ought not to be possible for the landlord, even by way of counter-claim, to exercise his right of re-entry during the currency of the two-year period.

    Clause 8.—(APPLICATION OF PART I TO TENANCIES AND SUB-TENANCIES HELD ON TRUST.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 12, to leave out subsection (4) and to insert:
    "(4) In section three of this Act the expression 'assignment' does not include a disposition under which no beneficial interest passes; but the reference in that section to the tenant shall, in relation to a tenancy so vested or held as aforesaid, include a reference to a person beneficially interested as aforesaid."
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is designed to cure a slight defect in what was previously subsection (4) of Clause 8. That was defective in two slight respects. In the first place, it was not so worded as to cover the case of an assignment, in the case of a new trustee being appointed to a lease, from the old trustees to the new trustee together with the continuing trustees. The change made would still bring in that kind of case.
    There is also a means of evasion which is prevented by the new subsection—an evasion which would take the form of the tenant's transferring the ownership of his tenancy to a trustee and then assigning, not the tenancy itself, but the equitable right to the tenancy. Clause 3 operates only in respect of assignment by the tenant, and the "tenant" means the owner of the tenancy, and such assignment would accordingly not have been caught by the Clause as it stood before, since the assignor in those circumstances would not be the tenant. This is to cure those slight defects.

    Clause 10.—(RENEWAL OF TENANCIES OF SHOPS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 9, to leave out from "end" to "and" in line 10, and to insert:
    "immediately before the date of the commencement of this Act or within the period of two years beginning with that date."
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is to deal with a rather technical point which arises out of a change made in another place bringing the Bill into force on 24th June this year. The reason for the insertion of the words is that a yearly tenancy from midsummer to midsummer, if terminated by notice to quit, would come to an end at the last moment of 23rd June; and, therefore, one has—it was thought desirable, at any rate—to introduce wording, namely, the words "immediately before the date of the commencement of this Act …" namely 24th June, to bring into the scope of the Bill tenancies from midsummer to midsummer which are determined by notice to quit and which end one minute before—or less: one instant before—24th June. This is to bring in those tenancies.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Here we are obviously inserting words into what will be a statute which mean exactly what they say. Indeed, "immediately before" means just one moment before and not even five minutes before or two minutes before. I must say that I felt, when I looked at this, a little doubt whether a wider construction might not be given to this expression, namely, that a week before might not be regarded as immediately before. However, I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his intention. I only hope that, if it has to be construed in the courts, this will be regarded as one instance in which the words should be narrowly construed and in which Parliament will be held to have put in a statute precisely what it meant—that "immediately before" is the moment immediately preceding the expiry of that day.

    Clause 11.—(TIME FOR, AND INTERIM EFFECT OF, APPLICATION FOR NEW TENANCY.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 4, to leave out from second "the" to end of line 7 and to insert:
    "proceedings on the application (including any proceedings on or in consequence of an appeal) are finally determined."
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is one which is consequential on a later Amendment which relates to the question of appealing. It is purely consequential on it. I do not think that the House is really divided about the principle of the later Amendment. The later Amendment makes this Amendment necessary.

    Clause 14.—(PROVISIONS AS TO LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT, 1927.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 18, to leave out from "Act" to end of line 26 and to insert:
    "the following provisions shall have effect, as respects claims by the tenant for compensation under Part I of the said Act of 1927 and notices by (he landlord under paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section two of that Act or paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section four thereof (which paragraphs exclude compensation where within the specified period of two months the landlord serves on (he tenant such a notice for the renewal of the tenancy as is therein mentioned):—

    (a) no application shall be made under this Part of this Act for the grant of a new tenancy if the tenant has duly claimed such compensation as aforesaid and the landlord has within the said period of two months served such a notice as aforesaid;

    (b) where an application is made under this Part of this Act at a time when the tenant has duly claimed such compensation and when the landlord has not served such a notice as aforesaid but the said period of two months has not expired, the application shall not be heard until that period has expired, and if within that period the landlord serves such a notice the application shall be dismissed;

    (c) where at the time such an application is made the tenant has not duly claimed such compensation but the time for claiming it has not expired, the application shall not be heard before the expiration of that time, and if before the expiration thereof the tenant duly makes a claim the last foregoing paragraph shall apply as it applies where the application under this Part of this Act is made after the making of a claim for compensation."

    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This looks a formidable Amendment, but it really does very little. It is designed to deal with the situation that may arise under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927. Very briefly, as it stands at present the provisions with regard to the renewal of the tenancies of shops cannot operate when the tenant has made application for compensation for goodwill under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927; but, of course, under the provisions of that Act three months may elapse before it can be ascertained whether the landlord, an application of that sort having been made, offers alternative accommodation to the tenant.
    As the Bill at present stands, when an application has been made by the tenant for compensation and a landlord has, in response, offered alternative accommodation, the tenancy of the shop premises cannot be continued under this Act. As the 1927 Act is worded some three months may have to elapse before it can be known with certainty whether the landlord is going to make such an offer of alternative accommodation.
    What this Amendment does is to provide in effect what is to happen during the three months of uncertainty while the landlord still has the right to offer alternative accommodation to the tenant. It therefore makes a very slight change in the Bill as it stands at present, and cures a defect which was overlooked in its drafting.
    Mr. Powell: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would clear up one point which relates to paragraph (c) of this Amendment. The doubt arises in my mind that possibly this necessity for allowing time for a claim to elapse before the application under the Bill can be heard may result, in effect, in lengthening the tenancy by giving an extension to that extent of the existing tenancy or of the tenancy which has just expired. The question I ask is: Does this Amendment have the effect of increasing the protection afforded by Clause 11?
    The Attorney-General: With permission, perhaps I might say that I do not think it does. It postpones the application. The total period is the two-year period prescribed in the Bill as it stands.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not quite sure that I follow that. We are now dealing with Part II, which concerns shops. It is not a question of automatic extension for two years. Under the previous Clause it is, I think, a question of extension pending the making of the application. What I am a little concerned about, as I think is my hon. Friend, is the possibility that paragraph (c) may be abused; that an application can be made and, if there is no claim for compensation made with it,
    "the application shall not be heard before the expiration of that time,"
    and it is provided that until the application is heard the applicant shall remain in occupation.
    Under that, will it not be possible for a person seeking to take undue advantage of this Measure to extend the occupation of the premises? If that is one possible result, it would appear to be a slight defect in this part of the Bill. We should like to know whether that is so.
    The Attorney-General: With the leave of the House, I think that I should qualify what I said before by saying that it might result in a three weeks' extension of the tenancy, which the tenant of the shop premises can obtain. On the other hand, there is no alternative but to provide some machinery for what is to happen during the lapsing period in which there is uncertainty as to whether the landlord proposes to exercise his remedy or not. There is that slight extension. Nevertheless, if we do not make the change the present Clause would not be workable, because we should not know what should happen during the period of uncertainty.

    Clause 15.—(APPEALS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 38, at the end, to insert:
    "except with the leave of the court."
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is a consequential Amendment.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: A previous Amendment with which we dealt was consequential upon this Amendment. This is an Amendment to insert
    "except with the leave of the court."
    and that is hardly consequential, except
    596
    that it is consequential upon the debate we had in Committee, which went on for a long time. The debate terminated with the Patronage Secretary taking a little walk and then another little walk back, after which, in response to a statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we withdrew our Amendment so that the matter could be re-considered.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley) indicated assent.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Patronage Secretary nods, so he realises that my recollection of his exercise on that evening is entirely accurate. Naturally, in view of the Government's rather belated acceptance of our suggestion we shall not oppose this Amendment. If only the right hon. and learned Gentleman had listened to us more speedily, and had not put the Patronage Secretary to that considerable inconvenience, a great deal of time might have been saved, and this Bill might have reached the Statute Book much sooner. This is a third instance of where a little more attention to our proposals would save time.
    The Attorney-General: With the leave of the House, perhaps I could add that when I said this was consequential, I should perhaps have said it was consequential in perhaps a rather over-technical sense. I think I explained it when dealing with the previous Amendment relating to appeals. Of course, we always pay the greatest attention to anything said by hon. Members in all parts of the House, but looking at this fairly and squarely, I think that this is a sensible compromise between the view we held and the view urged by hon. Members opposite.
    Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 38, at the end to insert:
    "(2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) of section eleven of this Act, the court granting leave to appeal may direct that during the period beginning with the granting of leave to appeal and ending with the date to which a tenancy is continued by the said subsection (3) the tenancy shall have effect subject to such modifications, terms or conditions as that court may specify."
    7.15 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

    597
    This is consequential. [Laughter.] Indeed it is. I am not sure whether I would describe it as technically consequential, but I should add a word about its object. Its object is to deal with the situation which arises when the county court judge has given leave to appeal. If he has given leave to appeal, the effect of the Amendment is that the old tenancy continues on the pre-existing terms unless the county court judge thinks that it is proper for a change to be made in the pre-existing terms until the appeal comes up.

    Clause 20.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 2, at end, insert:
    "'dwelling-house' means a house or a part of a house being a house or a part normally used as a dwelling;"
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Consequential?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman is putting into my mouth a word which I now rather hesitate to use. It is consequential, but it also inserts a definition. It is consequential in the sense that a definition is made necessary by what has gone before.
    Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 23, at end, insert:
    "so however that this exception shall not have effect where either—

    (a) the excise licence for the time being in force in respect of the premises is a licence the duty in respect of which is the reduced duty payable under section forty-five of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, or a licence granted in pursuance of regulations under subsection (5) of the said section forty-five (which relates to the granting of licences on the provisional payment of reduced duty), or

    (b) the Commissioners of Customs and Excise certify that no application under the said section forty-five has been made in respect of the period for which the excise licence for the time being in force was granted, but that if such an application had been made such a licence could properly have been granted as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph."

    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    598
    I cannot possibly describe this Amendment as consequential, but I hope its object will be clearly known to the House. This matter was raised during Committee by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who said that when off-licensed premises were within if the scope of the Bill it was rather illogical to exclude restaurants where liquor could is be served with meals. It was then sought to devise some system whereby we could bring into the scope of the Bill restaurants with licences to serve intoxicating liquor with meals, while not at the same time bringing into the scope of the Bill ordinary public houses, with regard to which different considerations apply.
    The object of this Amendment is to introduce provisions whereby licensed restaurants whose liquor sales constitute not more than 60 per cent. of their total sales can be brought within the scope of the Bill. For that purpose we have adapted and used certain provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, so that a restaurant coming within the provisions of that Act is brought within the scope of the present Bill.
    Mr. Powell: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, this arises out of an Amendment tabled at an earlier t stage by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) and myself. There is one question I should like to address to the Attorney-General regarding this present form of wording. Under the Section of the Finance (1909–10) Act to which this refers, a reduced licence duty is payable by two types of premises. One t is the licensed restaurant to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, which it is desired by this Amendment to bring within the protection of the Bill.
    The other, however, is a hotel by which the same conditions in regard to the proportion of liquor sales to total sales are fulfilled. I believe that a doubt exists whether these words have the effect of extending protection to that type of hotel as well, which would, I think, not be regarded as squaring with the general intention of the Bill. It certainly was not in my mind in moving the Amendment in Committee. I hope the Attorney-General can give us some guidance on that.
    The Attorney-General: I speak again with the leave of the House. I think that no difficulty arises by reason of the defini-

    599
    tion of the words "retail trade or business," which appear in Clause 20. Those words would, in all ordinary cases, exclude hotels. It is no doubt theoretically possible to have a hotel with a very large banqueting business but very few bedrooms, in which case it could be fitted into the conception of an undertaking carrying on a "retail trade or business. Unless it can be fitted in—and it is obvious that it would be only in rather rare cases that it could so be fitted in—it would not be brought within the scope of the Bill. There would have to be something which would show that it is an undertaking carrying on a "retail trade or business" and that would not apply to the ordinary hotel whose main business is to provide services in the form of accommodation.

    Clause 21.—(SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 15, line43, at end, insert:
    "(2) This Act shall come into operation on the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and fifty-one."
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The object of the Amendment is to make it apparent on the face of the Bill when the Bill will come into operation. It is hoped that it will come into operation at a date which will very closely approximate to a date when, if our hopes are realised, both Houses of Parliament will have agreed on its provisions. We think that, on reflection, it is desirable that there should be some provision making it clear when the Bill is to operate.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think that this is the last Amendment which does not come within the description, whether technical or otherwise, of consequential, and is the last Amendment of any substance at the conclusion of the consideration of the Bill in this House which has taken up a great deal of the time of the House. I do not complain about that, but I think that if the Government had adopted a different attitude the time taken might have been shorter.
    The Amendment effects an improvement in the Bill. I think that it was
    600
    suggested in the earlier stages of the Bill and, like so many other of our suggestions, was not then accepted. The total effect of many other Amendments—I think, indeed, all of them—which have been made both here and in another place has been to improve this Measure very considerably, to make it easier to understand and fairer in its operations. I can only say that if more of our suggestions had been accepted, I should have been able to commend this Measure much more strongly than I am able to do at the present time.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
    Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: The Attorney-General, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. George Thomas, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd and Mr. Manningham-Buller; Three to be the quorum.—[The Attorney-General.]
    To withdraw immediately.
    Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Whiteley.]
  7.25 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I have to announce an alteration in tomorrow's business in view of a desire for a debate on the situation in Persia. The first business will be consideration of the Motion standing on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition relating to the Ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means. Afterwards the Adjournment will be moved for a debate on Persia. The business already announced for tomorrow will be postponed. I hope that this rearrangement will meet with the general convenience of the House.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  TELEPHONE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.27 p.m.
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I hope that if my remarks are brief I shall not be regarded as being discourteous to the House. This is the first telephone Bill in the history of Parliament. It is astonishing that we have this vast business organisation and have never before had a Bill the purpose of which is to provide for the running of that vast undertaking.
  I should like to divide my remarks into two parts. In the first part, I wish to deal with the need for and the background of the Bill, and, in the second part, briefly to describe the Bill itself. To use a phrase which has had some currency during the last half-hour, the Bill is really consequential on my examination last autumn of the powers of the Postmaster-General in relation to the charges made for various services provided by the telephone service.
  I found that all the powers I had were derived from the Telephone Acts, 1863 to 1878 and 1885. I had these powers as a consequence of a court decision that a telephone message was also a telegraph message, and it is upon that extremely slender basis that the telephone system has been running ever since. This has given rise to the limitations of the things which the Postmaster-General can do over the years since there has been a Postmaster-General.
  Nearly every one of them has found these limitations an obstacle to the things which he felt he ought to be able to do and, on one occasion, the Postmaster-General—one of my Conservative predecessors—had to provide in regulations to do certain things in relation to contracts and, having got the regulations through the House, was afraid to operate them in case a private citizen took him up in court on the grounds that they were ultra vires. That was the position.
  I found, for instance, that telephone messages, conforming to the legal view that they were telegraph messages, ought to be paid for not in cash but in stamps. I am sure that the House will realise that it was like trying to run a modern railway
  602
  system with the powers of a canal company. That has been the position up to today. I am sure that the machinery that the Postmaster-General now has to operate was never designed for the telephone service. At the time the machinery was designed, there was no telephone service in existence. I am sure that the Parliaments of the 1880's had no idea that what they did in relation to a small telegraph service would have to provide for the needs of a telephone service so vast in size as that which we are running today.
  I found, for instance, that I could change every telephone charge except the rental charge. I could vary them all by placing upon the Table of the House an instrument which would not be debatable because the House has no control at all over any charge which I might care to impose for any of the services—except the rental. Even with regard to the rental the House has no authority, except the general one of being able to move a reduction of the Postmaster-General's salary. The authority for the rental charge rests with the Postmaster-General, in his relationship with the individual subscriber in that subscriber's contract. One of the terms of the contract is that I cannot change the rental charge unless I terminate the contract by giving the proper notice.
  The subscriber can only get a telephone into his premises upon the rental fixed by the Postmaster-General. The contract is freely entered into, but in no sense is the rental charge the result of an agreement between the subscriber and the Postmaster-General's representative. The contract confers a legal right to the possession of the telephone, and states what the subscriber has to pay for possessing it. The conditions and the costs are specified outside the terms of the contract and are completely outside the control of the subscriber.
  That is an entirely anomalous position. The contract specifies that it should be terminated by three months' notice, although since 1934 the new subscribers have been put on to a month's notice. The contract does not set out the financial relationship between the Postmaster-General and the subscriber for the use of the telephone. A telephone is not of much use as an ornament. It is wanted for purposes of communication. As things

  603
  stand, rentals cannot be raised without terminating the contract. This may have been a tolerable position in the old days. This is one of the matters which my predecessors in this office have found extremely embarrassing as limiting their allocation of the costs of the service equitably over all sections of the service.
  In 1921, the last time when these contracts were changed, we had in this country merely 500,000 contracts. Today, we have more than five million contracts. It would cost us some £800,000, I am advised, to terminate contracts and replace them by new contracts, and it would take about a year to do. As time goes on, and as the growth of the telephone system increases, we shall find ourselves in the position that rentals will be either artificially low or artificially high, according to the circumstances, because the cost of changing them in the contract would become in one case greater than the amount of the increased charge, or, in the other case, greater than the savings which we should like to pass on to the subscribers.
  As the telephone service extends, the cost of facing this problem becomes even greater. The more contracts there are, the more costly will it be to vary them. If I had the same flexibility with regard to the rental charge as I have with regard to the other charges, it may well have been that the cost of the recent increases would have been spread in a different, and what I would consider to be a more equitable, manner. Certain types of service in the telephone system are paying, therefore, a little more than they would have paid had I been free to deal with the rental position.
  Let me sum up. Parliament has no direct control at all over the terms of the subscriber's contract or over the terms on which subscribers use their telephones. I am seeking, in the Bill, to bring all these matters under a form of Parliamentary control by making all the charges the subject of regulations, giving the Postmaster-General that flexibility which will enable him to spread the costs of the service equitably over all sections of the service. To do this we must discharge our liability under the contracts by giving individual subscribers the appropriate notice in the appropriate form to terminate the contracts. The sanctity and the
  604
  terms of the contracts are preserved by this proposal. By the terms of the contract the subscriber must have notice. Under the proposals in the Bill I intend to give the subscribers notice in accordance with the terms of their contracts, and to bring them under these regulations.
  This matter has been considered three times before in this House. It was considered in 1949, when it was proposed to terminate the contracts by legislative action. On all sides of the House it was felt that that was entirely wrong and that if the State could not keep its contracts with the citizen that would be a bad example to everybody else. Therefore, the decision was taken to drop that proposal. The only other occasion on which the contract was interfered with was during the war and then it was by legislation. The rental charge was raised by 15 per cent. by legislation and not by terminating contracts. It was not done on an individual basis at all. Legislation overruled the contract which the citizen had with the Postmaster-General.
  The third occasion on which there was an attempt to interfere with the contracts was that to which I have already referred, when regulations were laid before the House and were approved. That was done by a Conservative Postmaster-General, in 1936. One of the provisions of those regulations was that the telephone rental charge should be increased. Because there was a fear that the private citizen would take the Postmaster-General to court if he did that, the regulations were never operated. What I am proposing is that there shall be termination of contracts by the service on each subscriber of a notice to terminate his contract in accordance with the terms of the contract.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question? I am very interested in what he has said about his intentions. Can he tell me what is the provision in the Bill which safeguards existing contracts from being interfered with by regulations made by him?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I require no power; I have the power to terminate contracts.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What is the provision in the Bill?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: There is no declaration about that in the Bill. It is thought

  605
  that I should not require to take power to do something for which I already have the power and which I intend to do.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I must have put my question with insufficient lucidity. Is there anything in the Bill which prevents the right hon. Gentleman from interfering with existing contracts?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: There is nothing in the Bill which authorises me.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Or "prevents"?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Authorises. I am prevented by law from interfering with contracts. If I interfered with a contract the subscriber would have the right to take me to court. I am not seeking any power to interfere with the contract. When we come to discuss the transitional provisions, on the Committee stage, we can thrash this matter out further, but I am satisfied that there is nothing in the Bill which would authorise me to interfere with the contracts. If hon. Members on either side of the House can point to an objectionable feature of that sort, I shall listen to what they have to say with complete sympathy and very great readiness to remedy the complaint.
  I propose, after the passing of the Bill, to serve subscribers with notice to terminate their contracts and this will be accompanied by an explanatory letter indicating that future service will be on the basis of the regulations. Regulations will be laid before the House embodying the present telephone charges, including rentals. Any future variation of these charges will be required to be made by further regulations under the control of Parliament. I hope to bring in the regulations after the House resumes at the end of the Summer Recess.
  I agree that this is a costly way of doing a tidying up job and obtaining the proper basis for the exercise of the powers of the Postmaster-General, but I take the view—I am sure the House will be with me in this—that Parliament, at least in peace-time, should not seek to legislate away the rights that are enshrined in contracts with individual citizens and that those contracts should only be terminated in the manner provided for in the contracts.
  I should add that the Bill gives Parliament a power over Post Office charges
  606
  that it has never had before. In regard to a business of this magnitude, I should regard Parliament as being the proper watchdog for the nation. It will be seen that I am providing for this great national service a degree of Parliamentary accountability which is exceptional, and I am sure the House will appreciate that there has been an intention on my part not to take away from Parliament any powers which it has but rather to give to Parliament greater powers over the Post Office and to put the matter on a proper basis in a proper telephone Bill.
  Clause 1 provides the general power for the Postmaster-General to make regulations governing the use of the telephone service. Clause 1 (1) deals with the type of service. Subsection (2) gives me the power to make regulations to fix the charges for different types of services. Subsection (3) subjects the regulations to the negative resolution procedure.
  Clause 2 (1) makes it clear that the Postmaster-General can enter into agreement for the provision of a telephone service in exceptional circumstances. Various types of services have to be supplied to Press agencies, and so on. Subsection (2) enables regulations to be made to deal with the transitional arrangements so that there shall be no interference between the termination of the contract and the coming into operation of the regulations basis. Subsection (3) preserves the freedom under the present contractual system of the Postmaster-General to provide a service or not in a certain case.
  I should like to give a classic example of that. A firm went bankrupt owing the Post Office a sum of money. Certain persons in the company re-established themselves, and I told them, "You will not get a telephone service unless you pay the last bill." That is the sort of thing for which I seek these powers. Clause 2 (4) preserves Section 2 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, from which is derived the existing powers of the Postmaster-General to make regulations about telegraphy and telegraphs.
  Clause 3 repeals Sections 17 and 18 of the Telegraph Act, 1868, which calls upon me to see that all telephone calls are paid in stamps and not in cash and prevents me from giving credit for even three months to the telephone subscriber.

  607
  Those Sections are obsolete and obviously have no application to the modern telephone system.
  The Bill, in short, gives powers to the Postmaster-General to run this vast enterprise with an instrument conceived for the purpose. It is quite wrong that we should have to rely upon the archaic provisions of 1880 to run the vast business of 1951. The Bill provides a full degree of Parliamentary accountability. There are, no doubt, a number of points which hon. Members will want to clear up in Committee, but I hope that the House will realise that the Bill is intended to do a tidying up job. It attempts to put the operation of the telephone system on a business-like basis and at the same time gives the House that degree of accountability which is possible in respect of a business of this sort.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. R. V. Grimston: Listening to the Postmaster-General describing all the inhibitions which he and his predecessors have suffered, I began to wonder how it was that the telephone service ever grew up without the Bill; but, when one strips off all the verbiage and so on, what it really amounts to is that the Bill is necessary the more conveniently to raise telephone charges.
  The Explanatory Memorandum says:
  "The object of this Bill is to provide improved machinery for the conduct of the telephone service."
  It goes on:
  "The basic change proposed to be made … is the provision of equipment and apparatus under a system of statutory regulations … in order to simplify and cheapen the procedure whenever a change in rentals and other charges becomes necessary. The transition to the new system will be effected by terminating the 5,000,000 odd existing contracts by … offering the subscribers … continued service under the regulations …"
  What pictures that conjures up of pleasant talks by telephone subscribers under "continued service," but the cat is let out of the bag by the reference to what happened in 1949 and to what the Postmaster-General said last April. So that in spite of all the fine phrases in the Explanatory Memorandum, this is a Bill to enable the Postmaster-General to increase charges by improved machinery, because that is what he wants to do at this moment. If he did not want to do
  608
  it at this moment, I believe the telephone service could go on expanding as it has done under existing machinery.
  As the Postmaster-General said, it is a matter of some importance to take away individual contracts and replace them by a set of regulations wielded by the Postmaster-General in charge of a monopoly. It is a serious matter which needs to be examined. I agree that right back to the last century we have had telegraph charges, postal charges and telephone charges, except rentals, under regulations which cannot be prayed against. In so far as this Bill brings a section not under the immediate purview of this House within its purview, it is good. However, we must not forget the fact that the Postmaster-General has a complete monopoly and that he is now seeking power by regulations to lay down the terms, conditions and charges under which he shall give a telephone service.
  We shall want to know something of what the Postmaster-General intends with regard to these regulations, but first I want to say something about existing contracts. In one part of his speech he said it would take a year to wind up the existing contracts.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: No, I said it would take a year to negotiate and replace, but to cancel or terminate and not replace would take a much shorter time.
  Mr. Grimston: I appreciate that, but there are some contracts which go for a longer period. I am not speaking of the ordinary subscriber's contract, of which I have a copy here. We want to be certain that contracts will not be abrogated by the powers which the Post master-General is taking under this Bill. There is nothing in it which I can see that gives such a safeguard. As far as I can see, it is completely open, and the Postmaster-General would be able to introduce such a regulation—
  Mr. Ness Edwards Mr. Ness Edwards indicated dissent.
  Mr. Grimston: We will examine it in Committee because a safeguard of that sort should be written into the Bill, if only for the sake of principle. The same consideration applies to some extent to the saving Clause, Clause 2 (1), where the Postmaster-General reserves to himself the power in certain cases to give a service under contract instead of under

  609
  regulation. There should be some provision that where a contract of that kind is so given, the Postmaster-General cannot abrogate it subsequently by regulation. That is the same point as the one with regard to existing contracts.
  I do not propose to talk about the call charge side of it now, but to confine my remarks to the rentals. Clause 1 (1, b) provides for fixing, or providing for fixing, charges in respect of the rentals. By way of introduction to the point I want to make, may I say that when a person or firm acquires a telephone, that person or firm does not want to take on an unknown liability as regards rental. Particularly in the case of a firm, people do not want to take on a liability on a rental basis which may be changed almost at a moment's notice.
  Some provision of a contractual nature will have to be made in the regulations so that the Postmaster-General consents to supply a telephone on a rental basis which shall not be altered without some period of notice. That consideration does not apply in the same way to call charges because, if they are increased, the subscriber can say, "I must cut down my calls in order to reduce my liability."
  Here I want to digress to say something about the shared line. I was an advocate of it, particularly during the war, in order to give service to as many people as possible. However it is by no means an ideal system and I see that a new technique is being adopted in this regard. During the war, when a subscriber wanted a telephone we used to try to get a shared line on a voluntary basis, but I see that all new contracts now are only being issued on the condition that the subscriber is prepared to share his line with somebody else. He will get an exclusive line to start with only if he agrees to share it later should the Postmaster-General desire that.
  I am not quarrelling with the system at the present time, when we want to give service to as many people as possible, but I want to know if this system of a shared line is to be regarded as a permanent feature of the service or only as a stopgap. People who have enjoyed the exclusive use of a telephone line for many years, and then move house, look upon themselves as old customers of the Post Office who ought to be looked after. They find, however, that they are treated as
  610
  new subscribers and there is a feeling of resentment. In this matter the Postmaster-General should try to do something for what I call his old customers. It is not a big point, but it is one of satisfying old customers.
  I should be glad to hear what progress is being made with secrecy on shared lines. From complaints that reach me I find that the chief one is the lack of secrecy. That complaint comes particularly from professional people who transact some of their business from home. Incidentally, I can well imagine that the way some ladies use the telephone would drive anyone who shared a line with them into a lunatic asylum. However, that is all good business for the Post Office.
  Behind the introduction of this Bill is there any intention of altering the structure of telephone charges? From one or two remarks made by the Postmaster-General I have been wondering whether he has anything in mind in that regard. I can think of many ways in which it could be done, not all of them advantageous. I should like to know something about that, because, of course, under the Bill he will have complete power to alter the structure of telephone charges.
  In this connection the House should always remember that before the war it was a buyers' market for telephones. The Post Office had to go out to sell the telephone, and could only do so on terms and conditions which would attract the potential consumer. Of course, the position is now entirely reversed and it is completely a sellers' market, and it is likely to be so for some time. That is all the more reason why we have to look carefully at the terms and conditions which can be imposed by an absolute monopoly, particularly bearing in mind that there is nothing with regard to the telephone price structure which is analogous to the Railway Rates Tribunal or anything of that sort. The Postmaster-General is the complete arbiter, and there is no statutory machinery to which he has to go where the public or business or any other interests are brought into consultation before he comes down with the charges which he proposes to make.
  That brings me to Clause 1 (3), which provides for the negative procedure for the regulations. We think that the negative procedure by Prayer is not good enough for these regulations. I do not

  611
  propose to go over all the arguments about Prayers—we have had a good deal of experience of them in recent weeks—but there is no doubt that in a matter of this sort, which can affect the business community and many private individuals, these regulations should come up, particularly where charges structures may be involved, by some sort of affirmative procedure and, if possible, some sort of procedure where amendment might be made. That, however, is a Committee point, but I tell the right hon. Gentleman that we feel strongly about it, for the reasons I have stated. We shall certainly want to look into the matter very carefully, when the Bill reaches the Committee stage.
  I return for a moment to the subject of user of the telephone by Government Departments. It is estimated that the amount—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman will see in a moment how this comes in. The cost of the use of the telephone by Government Departments this year is about £12 million. As the Minister knows, we take the view that the resumption of cash payments by the various Government Departments would lead to economies which would have two results. It would lead to economy of the use of the telephone by Government Departments, which in itself is a desirable thing, and it would also free a certain amount of apparatus for the Postmaster-General to be able to meet more of the back demand which he has to catch up.
  The introduction of this new system and the introduction of the regulations would make a very good moment at which to change over the system and, under the regulations, to make Government Departments pay for these services. The right hon. Gentleman has a very good opportunity of returning to the old practice, which I know in his heart of hearts he knows is the right one. It is a step which he will have to take any way if he is to put the Post Office on the footing on which, in recent speeches, he said he hoped to put it. I commend to him the idea that when introducing these regulations he should put the other Government Departments under them and along with the rest. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider this suggestion.
  The Bill has been hailed as a sort of "subscribers' charter," but I must for a
  612
  moment look at Clause 2 (3) in conjunction with the naive Explanatory Memorandum. The Explanatory Memorandum starts with these words:
  "The object of this Bill is to provide improved machinery for the conduct of the telephone service."
  Clause 2 (3), however, tells us that:
  "Nothing in the foregoing section shall be 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 only thing one can say about that is that one of the methods of providing improved machinery seems to be to provide none at all. The Postmaster-General mentioned some safeguard for which this provision was included in the Bill, but I think that he might find a happier way of expressing the protection which he wants than by putting down a sort of Alice-in-Wonderland feature between the Explanatory Memorandum and the Clause.
  This can be described as a machinery Bill. It raises an important principle with regard to contracts but we believe that if the Bill is drafted aright, this can be taken care of. In our opinion, it wants a little re-designing, and I recommend my hon. Friends to let the Bill upstairs, not for the purpose of, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wood ford (Mr. Churchill) once said, "wringing its dirty neck"—
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): He did not use that phrase. He used a more forceful expletive.
  Mr. Grimston:—but in order to see if we can fashion it into something which bears more resemblance to the declared object in the Explanatory Memorandum.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Some hon. Members, at any rate, will recall the fact that one of the infantry training memoranda issued some years ago by the Secretary of State for War recommended a "state of suspicious alertness." That, I think, is the right attitude from which hon. Members ought to consider this proposal, and my experience of the Postmaster-General is that he is at his most dangerous when, as this evening, he appears to be at his most reasonable.

  613
  I should like to begin by dealing with the matter on which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to allow me to put two questions during his speech: first, the position of existing contracts. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman has given an assurance that whatever the powers which he may be given under the Bill may be—and I will say a word about them in a moment—he does not intend to exercise them, or any of them, to interfere with existing contracts; that he proposes to terminate them only subject to the conditions contained in them for termination.
  Mr. Ness Edwards Mr. Ness Edwards indicated assent.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad to see that that vertical motion of the right hon. Gentleman's head indicates assent to what I have just said. I say that because it is rather important to get it on the record.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he is not taking the power to terminate them even though he said that he does not want that power. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at the Bill, and in particular at the provisions of Clause 1 (1, a), he will see that a very wide power is taken to make regulations for determining the terms and conditions on which telephone apparatus may be obtained and used. It seems to me at least possible—I do not put it higher than that—that that power could include the power to determine existing contracts under which telephone service is given.
  It is desirable, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, that there should be no doubt about the matter at all, and I hope that when we come to the next stage of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman may be prepared to consider the insertion of some provision for making it quite clear that no such power is given. While, of course, I accept his assurance as binding upon him, he would himself appreciate that Postmasters-General, although agreeable, are not always immortal, and that it is possible that some day some other person may sit in his position who would, perhaps, be more effectively bound by a statutory inhibition than by a ministerial undertaking. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to take the power, it seems quite wrong that, perhaps inadvertently, he should help himself to it.
  The Explanatory Memorandum has already called forth comments from my
  614
  hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston) and I must say that on reading it I detected in whoever drafted it a hitherto unsuspected sense of humour. I think that is shown by the bland way in which these words are used:
  "The basic change proposed to be made under the Bill is the provision of equipment and apparatus under a system of statutory regulations instead of under the system of contracts, in order to simplify and cheapen the procedure whenever a change in rentals and other charges now fixed contractually becomes necessary."
  I think that whoever drafted that must have had his official tongue wedged a little in his official cheek because the charming idea that one should effect administrative economy when one makes changes is completely divorced from the idea that the economy should be diverted to the subscriber and I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman will say that this Bill is to facilitate a reduction of telephone charges. It is quite clearly to facilitate their increase. There is a delightful sense of humour in the Explanatory Memorandum.
  Before we give the right hon. Gentleman power with greater speed and economy to increase telephone charges we are entitled to know what are his intentions. After all, a facilitating power has to be considered in the light of the intentions of a person asking for it and I think the right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House and to the country to tell us what are his intentions about telephone charges if and when he gets the Bill. He did not deal with the matter in his opening speech, but I understand that the Assistant Postmaster-General is to reply and perhaps he would be good enough to deal with that aspect of the matter.
  Turning again to the terms of the Explanatory Memorandum it seems to me that the major object of this Bill perfectly clearly set forth in that Memorandum is of a highly retrograde kind. We used to say that progress had consisted in proceeding from status to contract. Now, apparently, progress consists in proceeding from contract to Statutory Instrument, and I am bound to say that, from a broad social point of view, that seems a highly retrograde measure.
  After all, the right hon. Gentleman himself referred quite properly to the great undertaking over which he presides

  615
  as being a great commercial undertaking. I agree, but most great commercial undertakings regulate their transactions with the persons with whom they do business by contracts, not by Statutory Instruments. The more the right hon. Gentleman stresses, as he has this afternoon and on other occasions, the commercial character of the Post Office, the more it seems to me he weakens the case for abandoning in this respect the system of contract and going over to a Governmental system of Statutory Instruments.
  There is the disadvantage that, if the right hon. Gentleman makes a contract and breaks it the person who suffers from that can go to a court of law, but if the right hon. Gentleman make a Statutory Instrument and does not comply with it, it depends very much on the terms of that Statutory Instrument whether the other person has any recourse to any independent arbitrament at all. It seems to me from a broad point of view that, however convenient it is for the Post Office to abandon, as far as telephone rentals are concerned, the system of contract, it is a retrograde step.
  I fully appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman says it would be somewhat inconsistent to have part of his charges dealt with under a system of contract and part under administrative arrangement. That is a very valid point, but it does not follow from that that it is right to abandon the contractual side and assimilate that part to the other side of this business. It is at least equally open to argument that the right thing would be to put all of them on a contractual basis. Therefore, I do not put very much weight on what the right hon. Gentleman says about the desirability of having all this procedure on the same basis.
  The vital thing, of course, is these regulations which the right hon. Gentleman is taking power to make. I notice that he did say that they provide for Parliamentary control to an exceptional extent. With great respect, they do nothing of the sort. They introduce solely that negative procedure which is one of the lower forms of Parliamentary control over delegated legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury said, on behalf of those who sit on these benches, that he feels that negative procedure gives insufficient Parliamentary control and I will say a word
  616
  or two in support of my hon. Friend's views.
  In the first place, as recent statements by the right hon. Gentleman himself really confirm, Post Office charges and their increase are really a form of taxation. In view of the relations of the Post Office and the Treasury, they are one of the alternative means of raising money for the Government. They are really a form of taxation and, if they are a form of taxation, surely that taxation should not be imposed without previous assent being obtained from this House. It therefore seems to me that the negative procedure is quite wrong. My view of the true nature of these charges is, I think, supported by the fact that if hon. Members look at the back of the Bill they will see that the right hon. Gentleman is not only supported by his hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General, but by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
  Then there is the practical aspect. The perennial disadvantage of the negative procedure is that this House can only come into the picture when action has already been taken. In this case the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly free to introduce his regulations and impose new charges in the Recess and this House may come back to find them in effect. If an hon. Member seeks to move to annul the regulations, he will always be met by the answer that the whole system would be thrown into utter confusion if a scale of charges already in effect were annulled by the action of this House.
  That would be a very practical disadvantage, but it illustrates the disadvantages of the procedure. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees or disagrees, but to my mind this is both a form of taxation and an arrangement which cannot be upset without grave inconvenience. Therefore, the proper course would be to introduce that form of the affirmative procedure under which the Measure does not come into effect until it has been approved by the vote of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that in the later stages the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to consider a proposal on those lines.
  If a further argument is needed, I would call this in aid. This is a matter affecting the economy of the country and the financial position of millions of telephone subscribers. It is surely entitled to at

  617
  least the same degree of Parliamentary control and Parliamentary respect as is given on every occasion when any local authority in this country desires to have its cinemas open on a Sunday. As hon. Members will recall, when the smallest and least significant district in these islands decides to open the smallest and least significant cinema on a Sunday afternoon, it is necessary for a Minister of the Crown to stand at the Despatch Box and move a Motion. If that is the right procedure for that case, surely it is the right procedure in a matter of this magnitude and importance.
  I am very much concerned also as to the width of the power given to make these regulations and I should be grateful if the Assistant Postmaster-General could do something to relieve the apprehensions which I think many of us who have studied this Bill feel on the matter. In the first place, I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 1 (1, a). That provides that regulations may be made
  "for determining, or providing for determining, the terms and conditions on which telephone calls … may be made …"
  What I am concerned with is the significance of "or providing for determining." If the regulations determine the conditions then the conditions and charges are in the regulations and are already subject to the negative procedure. But if the regulations provide only "for determining" I take it that means that the regulations will themselves involve some sub-delegation to somebody else to determine the conditions. I hope that I have made the point clear.
  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. I am anxious that we should avoid any such abuse of the system of delegated legislation in this case. I should be grateful if the Assistant Postmaster-General would deal with that issue when he replies.
  618
  Another provision of the Bill which alarms me a little is that contained in Clause 1 (2). Provision is there made for the regulations providing
  "for the determination of questions which may arise in giving effect to the regulations …"
  I take that to mean that regulations can contain power to deny access to the courts of law to a citizen who is aggrieved by the Postmaster-General's action in accordance with the regulation, and can provide perhaps for some administrative tribunal to be set up instead of there being access to the courts of law for the settlement of any dispute. Power is clearly taken there and it seems to me utterly wrong that the right hon. Gentleman should take power not only to regulate by his regulations all the contractual arrangements, charges, etc., in connection with the telephone service but to reserve for himself or for some tribunal set up by him the settlement of disputes when some ordinary citizen comes into conflict with him in connection with his regulations.
  Although I regret to say that there are precedents for it, that would seem to me to be wholly regrettable and to be particularly regrettable in this case, where there is being taken away the contractual system under which the aggrieved party would have recourse to the courts of law. It would seem to me to be the duty of this House to secure that unless good cause to the contrary is shown, subjects who may come into dispute with Ministers of the Crown are not denied access to the King's courts for the settlement of those disputes. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General may be able also to deal with that issue.
  Although, as the right hon. Gentleman said, some of the points we have raised are in a broad sense Committee points, they are points of considerable materiality to the Bill as a whole: that is to say, unless a satisfactory solution of the difficulties which arise in connection with them can be arrived at, the Bill as a whole falls. Therefore, although they may be Committee points they really go to the merits of the Bill. Also, it is possibly of some convenience to the right hon. Gentleman that one or two of the points which it may be necessary to raise in Committee should be drawn to his attention at this stage so that he may have the chance of considering them with his advisers and of perhaps being in a better

  619
  position to come to some agreement in dealing with them.
  To sum up, this Bill contains much as to which I entertain grave doubts. The Bill seems to take excessive powers; it seems to arm the Postmaster-General with far greater powers than are necessary. Its true purpose, that is to say, the extent of the increase in charges which it is designed to facilitate, is unknown. From a broad point of view it is somewhat retrograde in eliminating the element of contract in the dealings of the Post Office. I end as I began by suggesting to hon. Members that a mood of suspicious alertness can properly follow the later stages of this Bill.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Pannell: I wish to address myself to the matter of the charges, or rather lack of charges, that are laid upon Government Departments. To give a personal instance, I was to visit my constituency in Leeds a few weeks ago and wished to go to one of the regional offices of one of the Ministries. I asked the Minister responsible to advise them that I would be there and would phone them on arrival to indicate the time that suited my convenience in order to see whether it was mutually agreeable.
  I had given 10 days' notice of this intention and it seemed to me that there was no difficulty; but when I phoned the regional office of the Ministry and said that I intended to come and asked what was a suitable time for them to receive me, they said, "We received two telephone calls from London yesterday reminding us of your intention to pay us a visit." That kind of thing arises because there is no charge and no check. Anyone who has been the chairman of a finance committee of a public corporation or who has been concerned with internal audit organisation knows that it is the lazy, easy and agreeable way of doing that sort of thing.
  If we are to cut down the enormous waiting list of people who desire telephone facilities, we must stop people from using the facilities in the way I have described. I ask my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Postmaster-General not to think that this is a carping criticism that might come from the other side of the Chamber. It
  620
  is one of those sort of things which we ought to think should be done in the interests of efficient and economical public administration.
  8.27 p.m.
  Mr. John Hay: After all the alarms and excursions that we have had during the last 14 days the House has been remarkably placid and quiet this evening. [An HON. MEMBER: "Exhausted."] I will not say exhausted. We on this side of the House are as resilient in spirit and as ebullient physically as ever, though we are surprised to see that so many hon. Members opposite have not found their way to their beds.
  This Bill is one which I confess seemed to me, when I first say it, to be taking a very grave step indeed. I admit at once that my legal instinct was against the idea of the Executive, by regulation, bringing to an end existing contracts which had been made with private individuals. That was an instinct which was a good one to have. I am very glad that when the Postmaster-General addressed the House earlier this evening he pointed out that it was highly undesirable that any Government Department should have contractual obligations with citizens and suddenly bring them to an end without some kind of careful protection for the rights which had arisen under these obligations.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the sanctity of contract. That is an admirable principle which some of us on this side of the House, at least, would like to see the Government observe more often. In the case of this Bill, they seem to be doing the right thing, though as to whether their purpose in doing it is free from blame I frankly have my suspicions, as has my hon. Friend.
  There was one remark made by the right hon. Gentleman in explaining the purpose of the Bill which I found somewhat puzzling and difficult to understand. As I read the Explanatory Memorandum—I will not repeat the words as they have been mentioned by both my hon. Friends—the main purpose of this Bill is to cheapen and simplify the procedure whenever a change in the rental becomes necessary.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Part of the reason.
  Mr. Hay: That may be part of the reason, but it is certainly a reason. In

  621
  support of that contention the right lion. Gentleman put it this way, that the value of the telephone contract to the subscriber is negligible—
  Mr. Ness Edwards Mr. Ness Edwards indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hay: I got down his exact words. He said there were only two advantages from the contract. One is that there is a stipulated and fixed rental charge, and not something which fluctuated, and, when the contract is terminated, there are certain rights, liabilities and obligations which have to be observed by the Post Office. Then the right hon. Gentleman told the House that, in the event of there being a desire to terminate and replace all the existing contracts, it would cost some £800,000 and would take about a year.
  I suppose that is the reason, or one of the reasons, why this Bill is put forward. Frankly, I fail to understand it and I hope that when the Assistant Postmaster-General replies he will explore that with us a little more fully. I cannot see any reason why it should be necessary for the Post Office to worry about terminating and replacing any existing contract. I fail to see the relevance of the money side which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  What is the purpose behind this Bill? Why should it be necessary to cheapen and simplify the procedure whenever a change in the rental becomes necessary? If I have a contract—as indeed I have—with the right hon. Gentleman as a subscriber, and he wishes to increase the rental which he charges me, he has to give me a month's notice to terminate my existing contract. Then, in effect, he says, "If you want to go on taking this service after the expiration of your month's notice I am prepared to offer you continued service, but only on the basis that you pay a little higher rental"; and in 999 cases out of every 1,000 the average individual subscriber simply knows that his telephone charges have gone up.
  He does not worry about all the internal complications; that in fact his contract has been terminated and a fresh contract offered to him. It is in that context that I find some difficulty in following the main point which the right hon. Gentleman made. Possibly that is due to stupidity on my part; possibly it is because he did not make himself very clear, but I
  622
  would like the point elucidated a little more by the Assistant Postmaster-General.
  The right hon. Gentleman described this Bill as a "tidying-up" Bill, and put it forward to the House as being a Measure which, when passed, will give him greater opportunity to give service, and will remove some of the handicaps and disabilities under which at present he labours. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston) described it, I thought quite appropriately, as a machinery Bill. I think we are entitled to ask what exactly is the purpose of this Bill? It may be a machinery Bill but for what purpose is the machinery set up?
  To begin with, the intention, as has been said, is to terminate these five million existing contracts with some kind of preservation of their rights under new regulations. Some of us on this side of the House are inclined to think that there may be in this Bill a stalking horse for an increase in telephone charges. If that is so, we ought to have known something about it a little earlier than today.
  Let me deal with those two points. First, this question of termination of contracts by this Bill, and their replacement by regulation, is a very big principle which this House ought to examine carefully. I would stipulate two important considerations which have to be put forward before we agree to this procedure. First, any change which this procedure brings about should not be to the prejudice of the existing subscribers.
  I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that if Parliament gives him this power to bring contracts to an end, then, when a new service is granted to the subscriber under regulation, the service offered, and the conditions upon which it is offered, should not be less advantageous to the subscriber than it was under the previous contract.
  Mr. Hobson: The hon. Member will agree that the Postmaster-General has the right to terminate a contract now if he so desires?
  Mr. Hay: Of course he has, no one denies that. But what he is saying is, "I wish to have the power, not only to terminate contracts but also to offer a service under regulation." That is the purpose of the Bill, as I understand it. What I am saying is that if we are agreeing to this on the wide-spread scale envisaged of the termination of all the

  623
  telephone contracts in the country, and the replacement of all of them by regulation powers, that should not be done to the prejudice of existing subscribers. They should not be in a worse position because the service provided for them is under regulation rather than under individual contracts. It is a limited point, but I am certain it is agreed.
  The second consideration I would put forward is that if there is to be any change in the rental charges, or charges for calls, a proper period of notice should be given before those come into operation. At the moment, if it is proposed to increase the rental charge in any individual case, the right hon. Gentleman has to give a month's notice to terminate the contract and offer service at the new rate. I do not think he would want to do anything different from that when he is running this telephone service under regulation powers. I hope that the right of reasonable notice to the subscriber, if any increase in charges becomes necessary, will be preserved.
  In a way it is a pity that we have to consider this Clause without some kind of draft of the regulations which are proposed. I think it would have been possible for the right hon. Gentleman to publish, possibly, a White Paper—I see that he is indicating that the regulations are to be tremendously extensive. If that is so, I think that is something we should have been told before. If these regulations are to be so enormous as all that what about the individual subscribers? At the moment their contract and rate of service is shown on a piece of paper and if they want to know anything more about it there are certain regulations which they can look up. Is it the idea to have enormous regulations?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Member appreciates the position that at the moment the subscriber has a small piece of paper which contains only one figure, the rental charge. All the other conditions are to be in this mass of regulations and the position under the new order will not be worse than it is now, which is the point he has been making. It will not be worse than at present.
  Mr. Hay: That is a very significant announcement because if we are to have an enormous volume containing these regu-
  624
  lations including, I presume from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, details of the charges, I think that rather supplements the fears felt by some hon. Members on this side of the House about this Bill, and that the position of subscribers will be much worse than it is now.
  Mr. Ness Edwards Mr. Ness Edwards indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hay: Well, perhaps we disagree about that. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he will bring in the Regulations after the recess. If, in fact, they are to be so enormous in size as he has just indicated, that adds greatly to the weight of the argument made from these benches that there should be some special procedure whereby Parliament will exercise more detailed control over the regulations than merely negative procedure.
  I can imagine what will happen. The right hon. Gentleman, when this Bill is on the Statute Book, will lay on the Table a huge volume containing these new telephone regulations. Every hon. Member will be supplied with a copy. In the time that we get after listening to the speeches from the Front Benches on both sides of the House—and the back benches, too—and answering the correspondence of our constituents, a lot of it dealing with complaints as to bad service by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, we shall have the opportunity of reading through this enormous volume.
  To say that we must then ask the House to present a Prayer to His Majesty that such regulations should be annulled, if we thought that there was some small point with which we did not agree without the opportunity of discussing possible Amendments, would be a very bad way of dealing with the matter. I urge that consideration be given to the suggestion that some other form of procedure should be adopted.
  Both my hon. Friends who have spoken from this side of the House, and indeed the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), who is no longer present, referred to the question of the increased charges. I do not know whether it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to increase telephone charges in the near future. I do not know, and he will not tell us. He has not told us up to now, but I mark two points. First, it is rather

  625
  odd that the proposal enshrined in this Bill comes forward at the crucial moment when the charges for a number of other Post Office services are being increased. That is somewhat significant. The second point is that, if it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to increase telephone charges in the near future, this Bill will make it far more convenient for him to do that. To use even his own argument, it will make it less expensive for him to do it.
  Mr. Hobson: No.
  Mr. Hay: We are labouring under a handicap in that we do not know what is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind or what is at the moment going round between him in his Department and the Treasury. If the intention is to increase telephone charges, we ought to be told before this debate is over and we are asked to vote upon whether or not the Bill should have a Second Reading.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: I cannot imagine any Postmaster-General introducing any Bill to make it more difficult for him to increase charges.
  Mr. Hay: That is the exact opposite of what I said. I said that if, in fact, he intends to increase charges, this Bill will simplify his position tremendously.
  Mr. Houghton: What does the right hon. Gentleman think the Bill is for?
  Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman ought to listen to what is said.
  Assuming for the moment that it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to increase telephone charges, is he really certain that such increases are necessary? I do not propose to go into all the long arguments already advanced as to the economies with regard to telephone charges, particularly in the Civil Service, which could be made. The hon. Member for Leeds, West, gave us an example of quite unnecessary extravagance. Is the right hon. Gentleman certain in his own mind that the door is absolutely locked, barred and bolted so that he cannot, even at this stage, comply with the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury that we should return to cash payments by Government Departments to the Post Office? That is something which we on this side of the House are entitled to press on behalf of the taxpayer.
  626
  The right hon. Gentleman is obviously in favour of it. His speech at Cardiff on 20th April this year was really a plea for that very thing to happen. The right hon. Gentleman furrows his brow. Perhaps he has forgotten his words. He started by pointing out to his audience that the Post Office is tied to "an archaic and Gladstonian idea of finance." He had obviously forgotten at that stage that a principle which Mr. Gladstone always enshrined in his finance was to see that the community was not taxed almost out of existence to pay for the extravagance of Government Departments. Also, I doubt very much whether Mr. Gladstone would have introduced a Bill like this without telling us whether or not he intended to increase telephone charges. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
  "All the money goes to the Treasury. We must ask the Treasury for every penny we spend. We have no reserve funds. I hope we shall be able to reconstitute the conception of the Post Office in the financial organisation of this country to free it from all the strings which are imposed upon it, and all those limitations which are the consequences of the present financial organisation and its relation to the Treasury."
  I have seldom heard the case for cash payments between Government Departments and the Post Office put more clearly. It is rather a pity that, with that in mind, he still retains his present office, although I am very glad still to see him there. If he really felt as strongly as that, it was of course the open season for resignations. I doubt whether it would have shaken the Government very much, but it might have brought home the point.
  I address this question directly to the Assistant Postmaster-General. We ought to know what is the reason why cash payments cannot be resumed. That is a question to which, we having asked it several times before, we are entitled to receive an answer. It is a suggestion which would go a long way towards relieving the Post Office of a certain amount of its obligation, and it would certainly make any question of an increase in the telephone charges rather more problematical than it is at the moment. The citizen is entitled to know when he picks up the telephone and pays 2d. for a call that he is not paying something for a Civil Service telephone call—possibly one for

  627
  the hon. Member for Leeds, West, warning somebody of his impending arrival.
  Another point about the Bill is in regard to the unfortunate Clause 3. Clause 3 is the one which repeals Sections 17 and 18 of the Telegraph Act, 1868. I was rather sorry that in his explanation of this Clause the Postmaster-General did not deal with the first of the two Sections which are to be repealed. He told us that it was intended that it should no longer be necessary for telegraphic messages to be paid for in stamps. I think we all agree with that. After all, with the colour of stamps changing as frequently as they do today, it is just as well that we should have no further confusion.
  I am concerned with the first part—Section 17 of the Telegraph Act, 1868. The Clause in the Bill informs us that that requires:
  "that telegraphic messages having priority in order of transmission over other messages shall be stamped with the word 'priority' by the Secretary of State or a government department and retained for twelve months by the Postmaster General."
  I must confess that I was intrigued by those words. I should like to know, purely from personal inquisitiveness, why it is necessary to repeal that provision.
  In conclusion, I should like to sum up our view of this Bill. We appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this matter and that he thinks that this Bill will help the running of his Department. Therefore, we do not propose to resist its Second Reading. We are, however, a little suspicious, I think with justification, about the timing of the Bill, about the wording and also the manner in which it has been introduced.
  We consider that Amendments are necessary to probe the intentions of the Government and also to safeguard the subscriber. We insist—and I think we shall possibly have some tussles about this in Committee—that these regulations, when eventually made, should be subject to a rather different procedure than the purely negative one, under which they can be laid and are subject to annulment only by a Prayer.
  There is one other question which is prominent in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I should like to know whether the provisions of
  628
  this Bill and the procedure which it lays down are going to make the telephone service more efficient. I do not propose to throw any brickbats at the right hon. Gentleman or the telephone service tonight, but I am certain that everybody in this country wants an efficient telephone service. I have said before that I believe that we have one of the best telephone services in the world, but we want to see it better still.
  I remember a debate which we had on the Motion for the Adjournment last November, in which I pressed the Government in turn to press the Treasury for more money for the telephone service. It is vitally important that they should continue to press for it. The situation today, as far as new subscribers are concerned, is just as bad as it was before, and we ought, if we possibly can, to see that this Bill, when it goes on the Statute Book, is not only a useful and workable Act of Parliament, but that it also does something to increase the efficiency of the telephone service.
  8.51 p.m.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): We have had a very interesting and very friendly debate. If I might venture to say so, as is their wont on Second Reading, some hon. Members have diverged from the exact terms of the Bill. Reference has been made in very general terms of the efficiency of the Post Office, and the charges that are made for the services rendered by the Post Office, and, to that extent, some of the speeches have been rather critical. All I wish to say in answer to those points is that, so far as Britain is concerned, our postal charges and telephone service charges are cheaper than those of most other countries of the world, and I think that, on examination, our services will be found to be equally as efficient.
  The chief point in favour of the Bill is that it actually gives Parliament more power than it already possesses. At present, my right hon. Friend can come along and merely lay before the House regulations to increase call and trunk charges and Parliament has no say in the matter, except in so far as it could be raised on a Supply Day. We are now going further under a system by which regulations can be laid dealing with increased charges, and those regulations can be subject to the negative resolution

  629
  procedure. Reference has been made in the debate to this procedure.
  Some hon. Members, whose points of view I appreciate, desire ways and means of amending this procedure, because they may find themselves in favour of part of a measure, but not the whole of it. To bring the point down to Post Office matters, they might wish to reduce the charges for telephones, and it would be impossible for them to do it, because, under that procedure, they must either accept or reject the whole of it. I suggest that that is a general question for the whole House, and not simply one for my right hon. Friend alone. It is something which affects the whole of delegated legislation, and, therefore, we shall have to continue with the present method.
  Mr. R. V. Grimston: Is the hon. Gentleman announcing now that he will not accept anything on the Committee stage?
  Mr. Hobson: Not at all. Nothing that I have said means that I will not accept suggestions in Committee. I realise the difficulty of the matter, and I think I am right in saying that this question has not only been raised in the House in relation to the Post Office, but also in connection with Prayers which have affected other Departments.
  On the question of the rentals, my right hon. Friend pointed out at great length the difficulties of terminating rentals. We all recollect the debate in 1949. If we had no termination of the rental contract, the fact would still remain that it is still open for my right hon. Friend to increase the existing rentals without any reference to Parliament. Under this Bill, Parliament would have a say in fixing the rentals, and surely that is something which hon. Members opposite, who are always critical of the fact that Parliament has not sufficient power, should be able to support, when we are giving Parliament the power to have a say about what rentals shall be charged.
  Among the other points raised by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston), was the question of the shared service and whether it was to be a permanent service. It is impossible to say now whether it will or not, but in view of the shortage of telephones at present it is obvious that we shall have to carry on with that method of service. The right
  630
  hon. Gentleman also asked for an assurance, which has already been given by my right hon. Friend, to the effect that in no circumstances will contracts be abrogated, whether they be short contracts of one month, the older contracts of three months, or the long-term contracts which exist in special cases and which are referred to in and are certainly covered by Clause 2 (2) of the Bill. We would obviously honour all these contracts.
  Another point raised by the hon. Gentleman was the question of secrecy in the case of shared services. We cannot give any assurance on that matter now, but we are examining it. The House will be aware that in many cases we have already passed to separate accountancy with regard to shared services, which is an advantage to the subscriber. I was very pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the Bill. Having himself been at the Post Office, I can well understand that he realises the difficulties which exist in connection with this rental problem.
  Reference has been made to what the regulations will or will not do. The inference was drawn, and quite rightly, that regulations will be made under which my right hon. Friend will have power to act. That being so, the House would, again quite rightly, desire some information. As they exist at the moment, the regulations deal very specifically under the contract with the following matters. First of all, the cost of the rental is covered by the contract, as is the connection or the transfer charge and the 15 per cent. surcharge which was passed in 1940. Many charges, of course, are governed by regulations. Call charges, local internal trunk charges, the power to refuse to supply a subscriber with a line or to disconnect are all governed by regulations which have merely to be laid in the House.
  I can think of quite a number of regulations under which my right hon. Friend will have freedom to act. For instance, he would have such freedom to act when considering whether a private subscriber should be charged the private or the business rate. One cannot very well lay down in a regulation strict rules as to how to decide that problem. Again, in the case of, say, a ship docking in the Port of London, we cannot decide the exact tariff which that ship should pay for the

  631
  use of a telephone in that dock. It would depend on all sorts of circumstances.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), made reference, I think in a critical vein, about a dereliction of duty on the part of one of the officers of one of my right hon. Friends' Departments. But in the case of a person who desires to have a message left or passed to him on another telephone, it is quite impossible to lay down strict conditions. There must be a degree of latitude which the Post Office, being a big business undertaking, is surely entitled to expect.
  There is no deep-dyed scheme on the part of my right hon. Friend or of Post Office officials to try to take powers under the regulations. In any event, in many cases they already possess them. If we go through the regulations, particularly those which were laid in 1936, we find that a great deal of power is given to the Postmaster-General under them, and that is rightly so because, after all, we are a business concern.
  My own view is that this Measure is long overdue. The reasons why we want it were indicated by my right hon. Friend in his opening remarks. Why should there not be flexibility in charging rentals in the same way as there is in fixing the call rates? Let us take the analogy of the electricity industry, which is a fair analogy. Here we have units sold at a cheap rate in precisely the same way as we have calls charged at a cheap rate; and we have fixed prices, which the authority can alter. But my right hon. Friend is not in a position to alter rentals. He has no flexibility in dealing with the problem.
  Mr. Hay: Surely he has flexibility by terminating the contract and offering the same service at a new rate.
  Mr. Hobson: That is so, but let us look at it from a practical point of view. There are five million contracts affecting three million people at a cost of £800,000. Is it suggested that we should go through that every time? Of course not; it would be too absurd. What we intend to do is in line with what already happens on the Continent, in the United States of America and in Canada. Let us take the case of Hull. All that need be done to make an alteration in rentals is to announce in the local papers, those circulating in the
  632
  county borough of Hull, that in a month's time there will be an increase or a decrease in rentals.
  The Bill simplifies procedure and it subjects all charges to the control of Parliament. It may be true that there are a few exceptions and that under regulations the Postmaster-General would have power to negotiate charges, particularly in connection with Clause 2 (2). But we cannot expect to put in a regulation precisely what we intend to charge the British Broadcasting Corporation, for example, for the hire of a line. A certain degree of flexibility must be left to the Department.
  I feel that hon. Members opposite did not fully appreciate that the Postmaster-General can at present alter rentals, provided he gives notice, without any reference to Parliament at all; but here we are giving Parliament the authority. It is true that the authority is given by the negative Resolution procedure and that hon. Members opposite have criticised the form. It may be that they will move an Amendment on the Committee stage. But even taking into consideration their view of the negative procedure, the fact is that this Bill gives Parliament far greater authority than it has at the moment.
  The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) was under the impression that there would be scores of new regulations. That does not follow at all. My right hon. Friend did not say that.
  Mr. Hay: Yes.
  Mr. Hobson: He may have said that there are a lot of regulations in existence. That is perfectly true.
  Mr. Hay: I am sorry, but I must intervene. I suggested that we ought to have had draft regulations and it was at that point that the Postmaster-General indicated, by a motion of his hands, that the size of the draft regulations would be so enormous that it would be quite impracticable to issue them as a draft.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Hobson: The regulations can be seen in the Library, but we have got the regulations, and the regulations will be the existing regulations plus those regulations which deal with the cost of the rental. However, it is not fair—I think that that is the correct word to use—to

  633
  assume that if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament we shall have a sudden surfeit of regulations. That is an exaggeration, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree.
  Legal points were raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), and they will have to be gone into in Committee. I do not think that I can now answer some of the detailed questions that he brought up, although I have already dealt with the point about the power to act under the regulations that will be laid. I am pleased to hear that the Opposition are to agree to the Bill's being read a Second time. I think it is a Bill which is probably long overdue. It is one which commends itself to me—and, I am sure, to the House—in so far as it will enable all charges now to be subject to some degree of Parliamentary control which, hitherto, Parliament did not possess.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Could the hon. Gentleman answer the specific question I asked him on Clause 1 (2): Whether, in the first place, power is taken to exclude the citizen in dispute with the Post Office from access to the courts, and if that power is taken, whether it is the intention to use it?
  Mr. Hobson: That is a point which will have to be contained within the regulations when they are made. That is a very important point, I agree, and it is one of which we shall have to hear more in the Committee stage. The whole intention behind the Bill—and I think that the intention is perfectly clear, in so far as there is no abrogation of contract—is that there should be consideration given—and this is the point the hon. Gentleman made—in the regulations to be made to safeguarding the rights of the individual.
  Mr. R. V. Grimston: The hon. Gentleman has given no indication, for which my hon. Friends asked, of what increase in rental charges he has in mind or whether they will be made. Could he give us an indication now?
  Mr. Hobson: This Bill does not deal with charges. So far as I can see there is no intention of increasing rentals this year.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Sparks.]

  TELEPHONE BILL

    RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES (PROTECTION OF CIVIL INTERESTS) [MONEY] [No. 2]
    Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees). [King's Recommendation signified].
    [Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
    Resolved:
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for protecting the interests of persons called up or volunteering for certain naval, military or air force service, or doing work or training by virtue of section seventeen of the National Service Act, 1948, and of other persons consequently affected, in respect of civil rights and liabilities of theirs, it is expedient to authorise payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable under any other enactment which is attributable to the said Act of the present Session so far as it contains provisions (including retrospective provisions)—

    (a) for the making by public or local authorities of payments to or in respect of persons leaving their civil occupations in order to perform service in the Armed Forces of a description specified in the Act, and for extending any enactments relating to remuneration for service in civil occupations so as to apply to such payments;

    (b) for amending the law relating to persons who have been justices' clerks or collecting officers or employees of justices' clerks or collecting officers and who enter on service of a description specified in the Act before section nineteen of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, comes into force.—[Mr. Marquand.]

  DENTAL GOODS (RESALE PRICES)
  9.10 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Marquand): I beg to move,
  "That the Draft Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Dental Goods) Order, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved."
  This is the first Order proposed to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, and it relates to the first industry to be investigated by the Commission set up by that Act. In this industry and trade there are little more than 6,000 employees but the products it produces and distributes are valued at about £6 million every year, and they are goods which are vital to the practice of dentistry. They include not only artificial teeth but precious metals, other forms of filling, dentists' equipment, instruments, and so on.
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is to be associated with me in this Order if approved by the House, and I have a great interest in what goes on in this industry. Without these products a satisfactory dental service in this country could not exist, and we must be alert to safeguard the public interest, because the National Health Service has greatly affected this industry and trade. The Health Service began in July, 1948, and the Report on the Supply of Dental Goods tells us that retail sales of dental goods in 1949 were 60 per cent. higher by value than they were in 1948. That is a measure of the vast difference in the production and trade of this industry made by the National Health Service.
  I think that all who have read the Report must have admired the skill with which the Commission unravelled the story, and the clarity with which they described the workings of the trade and industry. It seems to me that the Report described a small but thoroughly typical piece of capitalism. The Commission said:
  "We have been impressed by the high sense of responsibility which prevails throughout the industry for the provision of the best quality of goods and of service to the dentist."
  They speak of the moderation of the men who control the trade association in the industry, yet they find that the prices of
  636
  some of the industry's products are too high, that there is restriction of entry into the industry and a consequent absence of free competition, and that certain objectionable practices contrary to the public interest are prevalent. That situation is evidently due, not to the villainy of any individuals but to the natural law that capitalist industry, left to itself, free of control, abandons free competition and moves towards monopoly.
  I need not weary the House with a long description of what facts the Report finds about this industry. I will refer to only some of the significant findings. They find, for example, that the Dental Manufacturing Company and the Amalgamated Dental group of companies together supplied 68 per cent. of the dental goods bought in the United Kingdom; that the members of the Association of Dental Manufacturers and Traders supplied 89 per cent. of dentists' requirements in these goods; and that exclusive dealing clauses have formed the core of the Association's arrangements throughout.
  In paragraphs 59, 60 and 61 the Commission go into some detail about the rules of the Association of Dental Manufacturers and Traders, which it refers to as A.D.M.T. It says:
  "Regulation 8 obliges all members to adhere to the retail prices fixed by the manufacturers or sole agents. Regulation 2 obliges manufacturer members to fix retail prices for all the dental goods which they supply. Regulations 66 and 68 are the exclusive dealing clauses. … Regulation 66 precludes any member from supplying dental goods to any person in the United Kingdom who is not a member, except at retail prices. Regulation 68 precludes any dealer member of the A.D.M.T. from buying certain listed types of dental goods, except from a fellow member."
  It goes on to say:
  "… that these two Regulations, if used in conjunction with restrictions on admission to membership, can also serve to prevent the entry of competitors into the industry."
  It is in keeping with the spirit of that type of clause in the Articles or rules, that Rule No. 4 states that:
  "… no Co-operative Society, whether registered under Act of Parliament or not, shall be eligible for membership."
  It follows also, to quote again the words of the Commission, that
  "It is contrary to the rules of the A.D.M.T. for hospitals to be supplied with goods at wholesale prices, however large their purchases and whether or not they are prepared to buy direct from manufacturers."

  637
  The Association had so tight a control over the industry, that even the powerful I.C.I., when it developed a new material to be used in dentistry, to quote paragraph 138 of the Report,
  "felt obliged to join the A.D.M.T. and to submit to its rulings in order to get satisfactory distribution of their dental products."
  The Commission adds:
  "Throughout, the A.D.M.T. applies its rules inflexibly."
  The Commission, therefore, says about the A.D.M.T. that
  "We consider that it restricts competition within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act."
  They go on to describe the various restrictive practices used and conclude:
  "All these practices obtain their force and effectiveness through exclusive dealing and the collective boycott."
  They also say:
  "Our main objection to the collective enforcement of resale price maintenance lies in the fact that, in the view of the A.D.M.T., it can only be made effective if there is exclusive dealing and the power of boycott."
  I have used throughout, in order that it may not be said that I attempted through my own prejudices or in any other way to colour the Report, almost entirely the words the Commission itself has used in this very admirable and clearly expressed Report to describe what went on in this industry.
  The Commission, having found these facts, recommend that the Amalgamated Dental Group should itself reduce the prices of porcelain teeth, which the Commission said were too high, and should reconsider its arrangement for the distribution of dental burs in the light of their Report. They also recommend that the Association of Dental Manufacturers and Traders should itself review its rules, regulations and policy.
  I am glad to say that the retail prices of porcelain teeth were voluntarily reduced from the 2nd April by 5 to 20 per cent., and the restrictive part of the agreements concerning burs has been voluntarily waived by the Amalgamated Dental Company. In addition, other firms in the industry have indicated that, in the matter of prices of acrylic teeth and denture materials, they will consider the Commission's criticisms and recommendations. I will say no more about that, save that we hope that the industry will fully realise its responsibilities in these respects.
  638
  The Association has set up a committee to review its rules and policy. The Government stand ready to help the Association in doing that and will be glad to render any assistance and comment on any proposal it may have to make. We consider that this review, in accordance with the Commission's recommendations, should be left to the Association itself. We trust that after it has been completed, if necessary, as I say, with Government help, it will not be necessary to introduce any further legislation to correct any abuses. So much for the recommendations of the Commission, in which they, as it were, invited the trade association to put its house in order.
  Finally, the Commission said:
  "We recommend that these practices of exclusive dealing and collective boycott be prohibited."
  This Order, which I am asking the House to approve tonight, is the instrument of that prohibition. The Order provides, in paragraph 1, that it shall come into operation 28 days after it is made. Paragraph 2 defines certain terms used in the Order. Paragraph 3 renders unlawful the making or carrying out of agreements for the withholding of dental goods or orders for dental goods from persons or providing persons with dental goods only
  "on terms and conditions which are less favourable than those applicable in the case of other persons,"
  where the agreement was
  "intended or likely to have the effect of limiting the number of persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom as suppliers of dental goods or any description thereof,"
  or where the agreement provides for the maintenance of retail prices.
  Paragraph 3 further makes it unlawful
  "to procure the making or carrying out of any agreement"
  so rendered unlawful. This paragraph is intended to prevent for the future the practice of exclusive dealing which the Commission found so objectionable and which they found to be one of the main features of the operation of the A.D.M.T., throughout its history.
  The question has been raised whether this paragraph would make illegal an agreement whereby a manufacturer engages to sell the whole of his output to one distributor or to sell goods specially made to order only to the person who

  639
  placed the order. This Order is not intended to make such agreements illegal, and in our view it does not do so. Nor would it prevent it being a condition of an agreement between wholesaler and dealer that the dealer will resell the goods only to the actual consumer. Correspondence has passed between the solicitor to my Department and the solicitor to the Association.
  I trust that the right hon. Gentleman who is to deal with the Order from the other side of the House has found that the terms of the correspondence, which I have attempted to summarise in the last few words, are satisfactory. If he is not completely satisfied with what I have said, no doubt he will develop that point. The Lord Advocate is here to deal with it further, if it be necessary.
  Paragraph 3 having dealt with the practice of exclusive dealing, paragraph 4 makes it unlawful to procure the boycotting of a supplier of dental goods on the ground that the supplier sold goods in the United Kingdom at less than the fixed prices. The effect of the two paragraphs together is to make the devices of exclusive dealing and collective boycott unlawful only in this context which the Commission have strongly criticised, that is, where they are used to enforce resale price maintenance and to restrict entry to the trade.
  Paragraph 5 secures that resale price maintenance operated by an individual vendor should not be unlawful. In short, the order seeks to carry out the recommendations of the Commission itself, and it does not go beyond those recommendations. That we have done deliberately because we decided that it would not be right in this Order to go beyond the recommendations made by the Commission. The Order is made under the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act, and the Commission itself operated under that Act, discharging its duty very effectively indeed, and we thought that in the first Order made under the Act it would be right and proper to confine ourselves to matters recommended by the Commission to be prohibited by order and not to seek to go beyond those.
  We felt that if we were to go beyond recommendations of that kind it would be more appropriate to do so by general
  640
  legislation which would apply to other, or to all, industries. Since that decision was made, we have laid before the House the White Paper on Resale Price Maintenance which announced the Government's intention to go in general, for the whole of industry, beyond what the Order does for the dental goods industry. It would not be in order to discuss that tonight, but the House will have an opportunity later.
  To complete the explanation, it is provided, I think, in Section 11 of the Order, that no criminal proceedings can be taken for a contravention of the Order. The remedy for any person who suffers injury owing to the contravention of the Order is in the civil courts, and compliance with the Order will be enforceable by civil proceedings by the Crown in the way of an injunction or other appropriate procedure. I am sorry: I should have said that this is provided for in the Act, I have become confused between a section of the Order and a section of the Act. It is the Act of Parliament itself which lays down that proceedings shall be taken in the civil courts. The Order will be enforced under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, which makes civil proceedings the correct and only procedure.
  It was suggested in the early stages of public discussion upon this matter, when some Questions were placed on the Order Paper, that there was no need to make this Order and that now that the objectionable practices prevalent in this industry and trade had been brought into the daylight and fully exposed to public view, the Association could safely have been left to itself to eliminate them all. That is not the Government's view. The Government hold that it is right and proper to make the maintenance of exclusive dealing and the collective boycott an offence.
  Those who say they have no intention of persisting in these practices clearly cannot complain that they are harmed. They will have the satisfaction of knowing that if in future they closely abide by the findings of the Commission they will get into no trouble and that anybody else who tries to do what has been done in the past will be prevented from doing so. Thus they have some protection if their assertions are correct that they will do this in any case.

  641
  Nor can the Government accept the argument that it would be better to wait until more reports about other industries are available. The machinery of this Commission, set up under the Act of 1948, has admittedly been slow. My right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade said that at this Box only a day or two ago. As it has been slow, there would be no sense in our waiting for a lot of other reports. We intend instead to speed up the machinery of the Commission and to act as quickly as possible on the reports we have received and which we expect shortly to receive. We must free the consumer and the shopkeeper from price rings and boycotts. This Order is a first step, and a first step is always a significant step, along a road which we intend to follow to the end. I hope, therefore, that the House will approve the Order.
  9.31 p.m.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question before he sits down? Why is it that the Minister of Health is introducing this price fixing Order dealing with a monopoly restriction? Why is it not introduced by the President of the Board of Trade?
  Mr. Marquand: Because the Act lays down that a competent authority may make orders under Section 10 of the Act, and for this industry, whose products are entirely used for health purposes, very largely the National Health Service, in England and Wales, I am the competent authority, and in Scotland my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is the competent authority.
  9.32 p.m.
  Mr. Padley: This order deals with resale price maintenance and its relationship to monopoly practices in the dental goods industry. In view of my close interest in resale price maintenance by virtue of my association with the principal trade union catering for distributive workers, it would be as well if I safeguarded my position by explaining the reason why I support the Order before the House.
  This is important, because there is much misunderstanding of the nature of resale price maintenance in the dental
  642
  goods industry as well as elsewhere. I myself have been misunderstood and not a little misrepresented in recent times. I support this Order as a Socialist who is wholeheartedly in favour of public action to prevent the exploitation of the public by monopolies, and I am prepared to support this Government in any action similar to the present Order which will bring prices down at the expense of the monopolists.
  But we should look carefully at the Order. My right hon. Friend referred to paragraph 5, but I want to direct the attention, particularly of hon. Members on this side of the House, to the precise terms of the Explanatory Note which interprets this Order for laymen. It reads as follows:
  "This Order renders unlawful certain kinds of agreement which may be described broadly as those relating to the collective enforcement of resale prices in respect of dental goods, and those the effect of which is to restrict the number of persons carrying on business as suppliers of dental goods. The Order leaves untouched the right of an individual to fix and maintain retail prices in respect of goods which he supplies."
  That is a policy which I advocated in this House 12 months ago, when resale price maintenance was discussed. Naturally, therefore, I give enthusiastic backing to the Order which is before us tonight.
  There are two kinds of resale price maintenance. The Monopolies Commission, which investigated this industry, came to the conclusion—in my view, rightly—that exclusive dealing, collective boycotts and similar weapons were being used by a monopoly group against the public interest. Therefore, the Commission recommended that an order similar to this one should be brought in by the Government. But the Commission, in investigating resale price maintenance in this industry, also came to the conclusion that, on balance, the maintenance of the price of a branded article by a producer was not against the public interest. Consequently, the Government, in following the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission, specifically exclude resale price maintenance in so far as a single firm fixes the end price for its branded goods.
  I ask hon. Members, including my hon. Friends on this side of the House, to note that that is the finding of the

  643
  Monopolies Commission when it has investigated this subject over a long period of time. I ask them to note also that the Monopolies Commission and the Order now before the House follow broadly the view of the Lloyd Jacob Committee Report—the Report of the body of experts which the Government appointed some years ago to investigate this practice of resale price maintenance.
  It is true, as my right hon. Friend has said, that a White Paper which was published yesterday puts forward a rather different view to that contained in the Order the Government are placing before us tonight. Without paragraph 5—on the right of the firm to maintain the price of a branded product—I might feel that some poor fellows earning £5 or £5 10s. a week in the distributive trades, rather than the monopolists, would be called upon to bear any reduction in prices; but because paragraph 5 is in the Order, I am able to give it enthusiastic support.
  In my view, it is doubtful whether the Order goes far enough in tackling the problems of capitalist monopoly. I was very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend describe the innate nature of a capitalist economy and the way in which free competition merges into monopoly. Twelve months ago, on the Floor of the House, I declared my belief as a Socialist that not even a Labour Government, by Act of Parliament or by Order, could make semi-monopolists compete with one another.
  I therefore wish to put to my right hon. Friend the point that it may well be that in the not distant future the Government will find it wise to bring to the House additional proposals, possibly of a measure of public control over the prices charged. For my part, I think it would be an improvement on the present Order if the firm which is to have the right to maintain the standard price of its branded product, were compelled to register the article and the price with the Board of Trade, and that if it were decided that the price would not be enforced unless the firm agreed not to regard dividends paid by co-operative societies and deferred discounts paid by other traders as a form of discount.
  I would go further still. Given the facts revealed in the Monopolies Commission's investigation of this industry, I
  644
  am not at all sure that the more forthright Socialist remedy would not be for the Government to acquire at least a 51 per cent. holding in some of the firms in this industry.
  Mr. Speaker: We are dealing with the Order and what is in this Order, which is dental goods and nothing else.
  Mr. Padley: With respect, Sir, I was only trying to illustrate my point.
  I will conclude on this note: that if this is a sample of the kind of legislative enactment which the Government intend to bring forward to reduce prices I as a Socialist, in spite of the partial reservation I have made, will give it wholehearted support.
  9.41 p.m
  Mr. Linstead: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) very far beyond saying that I and others on this side of the House will look forward with interest to the speech he may make should the House debate the White Paper on Resale Price Maintenance which has been issued recently by the Government. I have no doubt he will obtain a copy of today's HANSARD which he will doubtless find useful when he prepares his remarks for that occasion.
  I think that anyone who has read with care the Report of the Commission, which was the foundation of this Order, must feel that the practices to which they draw attention—the practices of this trade association—could scarcely provide a more complete example of an association which has exercised virtually a complete control over an important industry. They will find in those practices examples of almost every type of restrictive practice which has been criticised from time to time in this House and elsewhere and I personally will certainly accept the general conclusions of the Commission without serious question.
  I do, however, rather agree with the hon. Member for Ogmore when he separates the question of resale price maintenance from other restrictive practices which, in many trade associations, have crystallised round it. I believe that resale price maintenance—provided that the prices are fair—taken by itself, is a trade practice which need not be open to objection, but it is when they crystallise

  645
  round the practice of resale price maintenance the sort of practices we are discussing tonight—the practices, for example, of exclusive dealing, the maintenance of excessive prices, Star Chamber methods of enforcement, and so on—that we get a state of affairs in which intervention is necessary.
  So far as the dental industry is concerned it is quite clear that they have encrusted around themselves practices which make it essential for the Government and for the House to give some attention to it. I would, however, say this: we are tonight dealing with the industry somewhat unexpectedly and subjecting it to a good deal of rough handling. Just for that reason it is fair that the House should look very carefully at what it is doing. Here is an industry which has for years past been doing what is perfectly legal. It is an industry which has, since objections were pointed out to it, done its best in a very short time to put its house in order.
  Moreover, it is an industry against which Government action is being proposed in isolation without even having regard to the contents of the recently published White Paper on resale price maintenance, without having regard to the position of other industries where the same practices may be in force and without having regard to the recommendations of the Lloyd Jacob Committee. One cannot help getting the impression that the Government were looking for an industry of which they could make an example, and here they have found an example ready made for them.
  It may be expedient from time to time that an industry should be made to suffer for the sake of the community and it may be that here is an industry that deserves it—
  Mr. Mulley: Does the hon. Member not agree, in view of his earlier remarks, that the community has already suffered a loss at the hands of the industry?
  Mr. Linstead: If the hon. Gentleman would allow me to finish the sentence, he will see the force of the remark that I was making.
  If it is expedient that an industry should suffer, very well it must suffer, but let us remember that it is an expedient, and
  646
  that it is not necessarily a principle when we take one industry in isolation. I can understand the feeling of Members opposite but this is, after all, the House of Commons. We are tonight proposing to take action which I think has not previously been taken in regard to legislation. I therefore suggest that it is not a matter which should be hurried, but that it is a piece of legislation which, for the sake of the people against whom it is directed, we ought to be prepared to examine.
  I have no doubt that other Members of the House have received, as I have, a statement from the Association giving their views. Although I do not agree with those views it is not improper that the three objections which the Association raise to the proposed Order should be briefly mentioned to the House so that both sides of the question may be before us. The Association say, first, that this Order is unnecessary because they are able, by altering their own rules, as the Minister pointed out, to do much of what this Order proposes to do. I do not agree, but they are entitled to that point of view. I would agree with the Minister that more than the alteration of the internal rules of the Association is necessary.
  They go on to say that the Order is oppressive because they are being selected for priority treatment from many industries where there may be similar practices. There, they are on firmer ground. There is first a reservation by two members of the Monopolies Commission in which they say that they think further experience should be gained before an example should be made of one industry. I cannot help thinking that if these practices are to be declared illegal they should be illegal either anywhere or nowhere. In other words, if they are illegal in the dental industry they should be illegal in other industries where they are permitted. To that extent I feel that this Association have some ground for objecting to what is happening.
  The last thing the Association have to say is that this Order, in spite of the fact that it has had to be withdrawn at least once, to be looked at again by the lawyers, is still obscure. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald) will succeed in catching your eye, Sir, and will be able to elaborate the drafting point which the

  647
  Minister approached with considerable diffidence. I hope that that particular point, about sole agency, will not be left in doubt.
  Before we decide that we are tackling this problem the right way this type of Order must be looked at in relation to the industrial situation as it is today. We in this country are committed for a long time to a tripartite state of industry—the nationalised industries, private industry and the great industrial Departments of the State like the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour. It is necessary for those three parts to be in harmonious relationship one with the other.
  I believe that is much more likely to be brought about not by statutory orders of the type which the Minister is asking us to approve tonight but rather by what I would call codes of good practice accepted by private and public industry and by the great Departments of State. That is the way I think they should live together and work harmoniously.
  It has been said that it is only in the sphere of private industry where the abuses of monopolies are to be found. I am not prepared to subscribe to that view. I am not prepared to say that an Order of this kind should be limited to private industry. The principal harm of monopolies is the fact that power is in the hands of a few people, whether they be private or public monopolies. The system of outlawing certain practices by orders of this type does not seem to me to be the happiest or most fruitful way of encouraging unity among the three sections of our industrial front.
  The best which may be said of this Order is that it might be justified on the particular facts of this case. I hope we shall learn some useful lessons from it, which may be negative as well as positive, as to how the whole problem of industrial monopoly in both public and private spheres can be approached in a statesman-like way.
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Brooke: I am one of those who deplore restrictive practices wherever they are to be found. I am always ready to welcome effective action—I stress the word "effective"—to deal with them and, where they are
  648
  nationally undesirable, bring them to an end. I have been disappointed at the course of the debate so far, because the Minister seems to have failed to tell the House fully and frankly what were the real reasons which actuated him in determining to bring this Order forward.
  I do not claim, and I expect that I am in company with most hon. Members present, that I am in any sense an expert on the doings or the misdoings of this industry. I am a small consumer of some of its products, and I have read the extremely interesting Report of the Monopolies Commission. That Report left me wondering what was the most far-sighted action for a Minister to take towards making certain that some practices which were, I think, proved in that Report to be contrary to the public interest were brought to an end.
  As I understand it, the Association told the Minister that it was prepared to revise its rules and regulations on the general lines recommended in the Report The Minister replied that he was not very interested, because he intended to lay this Order. I hoped that at that point in his speech he would proceed to develop the reasons which were operating in his mind at that moment. We have not yet had that from him.
  Mr. Marquand: I did say, I thought clearly, that I knew that the Association had set up a committee for the purpose of revising its rules, that I was willing to offer help if necessary, and that I was looking forward with interest to the revision produced.
  Mr. Brooke: The Minister also said that the Government view was that it was right to make these practices an offence.
  The question to which Parliament has to address itself is whether we will get further in pursuance of the public interest by the method proposed tonight, than we will by seeing how far we can effectively proceed by voluntary action on the part of the Association. This is an open question, to which I think we ought to direct our minds.
  We have heard time and again from the Treasury Bench, when Government representatives have been resisting Amendments, that in their view it was unnecessary to put the point at issue into an Act of Parliament. They have said that, surely, everybody would accept the

  649
  assurance of the Government that, in fact, whatever was concerned would be done, and that there was no need to write it into the law. When anybody from the Treasury Bench says that to me in future I shall, if I am in order, point to this item this evening and say that on this occasion the Government have been proceeding on the exactly contrary basis, asserting that voluntary assurances cannot be relied upon to go far enough.
  Again, it struck me that in his speech the Minister hardly mentioned the fact that the Report of the Monopolies Commission was not unanimous. That is one of the most interesting elements in the problem that we are discussing. It calls for a balancing of judgment, as between the majority of the Commission, who recommended that an Order should be made, and the minority, who after pointing out that there had not been any very grave abuse of the Association's powers, expressed the opinion that it would be wrong to enact ad hoc legislation against this industry.
  I do not think that the fact that the Government have just published a White Paper excuses them from explaining more fully why they rejected the recommendation in the minority Report and decided that an Order was the right course. One cannot help wondering, or raising the question, whether it was political prejudice that played any part in influencing their decision. If it was not, then Parliament is entitled to know in greater detail what the motives were.
  Mr. James Hudson: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that it would be political prejudice that led the majority to take an entirely different view to the minority on that point?
  Mr. Brooke: I am taking a more serious view of the question at issue than, I think, some hon. Members. I am exceedingly anxious to make sure that Parliament shall be right, because this, as has been said, is a unique occasion. It is the first time that the machinery incorporated in the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act is being operated, and we shall all be watching with the greatest interest to see what the practical outcome is going to be. The words that we speak tonight will be of little effect. What will really make history is the success or failure of the Order which the Government are
  650
  proposing to carry through, and we can only test it by results.
  I was not asking the Government to accept, without question, the minority recommendation. I was asking them to explain why and on what grounds they rejected the minority in favour of the majority Report. I think we need serious discussion of the handling of a difficult economic problem; at any rate, a problem on which there is obviously something to be said on both sides. We have the Minister injecting political prejudice by describing this affair as a "small but thoroughly typical piece of capitalism," and I wished that the Minister at that moment had remembered his university connections in the old days, when, I am sure, he taught his students to approach all economic questions with as little previous prejudice in their minds as possible.
  Mr. Marquand: That was exactly what I was doing. I was remembering my university days, and, perhaps, I might mention, since it is now out of print, that I wrote a book upon the subject. That is why I found this particular industry an example of a typical piece of capitalism.
  Mr. Brooke: Nevertheless, I think that the Minister, in using those words, was injecting an element of prejudice into the atmosphere of the House, and what he said was as irrelevant to the practical question we have to decide as it would be if I were to seek to answer him by pointing out that the A.D.M.T., in order to bring itself within the Trade Union Acts, had to include in its objects that of imposing
  "such restrictive conditions on the conduct of the trade as may be deemed expedient by the Association."
  It is not only capitalism which knows something about restrictive practices and restrictive conditions.
  Finally, I hope that we shall hear from the Government something more about the practical possibility of the individual manufacturer maintaining resale prices for his goods, after collective arrangements have been rendered illegal. The Minister will recollect that this was a question raised in a leading article in "The Times" shortly after his original Order was laid. In that article "The Times" said:
  "The Association claimed that its collective price maintenance was necessary for individual price maintenance. There are good

  651
  reasons for believing that for this trade this is true in the present state of the law, and that the effects of the present Order may be on balance disadvantageous in the absence of legislation strengthening the power of individual manufacturers to enforce price maintenance agreements.'"
  I think it is a pity that the Minister in his introductory speech did not deal with that point. He claimed credit for the fact that the Order did not prohibit action for price maintenance by individual manufacturers, but did not address himself at all to the criticism that, in fact, his Order may render that impossible.
  I hope the Minister will not regard my speech as being a wholly hostile one, because I am most anxious that before the end of this debate we should get to the level of impartial economic consideration. My own view is that the wielding of the big stick is not always the best solution for these difficult problems, and that it is often the person who sees how far Tie can get by voluntary action and by carrying others along with him by persuasion who, in the long run, achieves more in the public interest than the man who has immediate recourse to legislative action.
  10.7 p.m.
  Mr. Lionel Heald: I have no connection, either personal or professional with the dental industry. Indeed, I feel that I may have had too little connection with it in the past, and for that reason I may have to have considerable connection with it in the future. But I have no connection which prevents me from speaking in quite an impartial way about it tonight. I am in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley). One does not require to be a Socialist to agree with him that we should do our best in this House to carry into effect the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission, which was set up in 1948 with the approval of all parties. As we agreed here last Friday, it is desirable that we should do everything possible to carry its recommendations into effect.
  I think we ought to realise what we are doing here this evening. Subparagraphs 2, 4 and 6 of paragraph 3 of this Order contain the words, "It shall be unlawful," and, therefore, we as the House of Commons are altering the law this evening. My hon. Friend the Mem-
  652
  ber for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) talked about bringing in the law. With the greatest possible respect to my hon. Friend, I would point out that we are not bringing the law in, but are altering the law in a fundamental respect.
  I myself having had the privilege of taking part in a small way in altering the law of England—I have been trying to do so for nearly seven months now, and am very hopeful that before the end of this week that process may be sonsummated—contrast that with what we are doing this evening. This flimsy piece of paper which I hold in my hand was deposited on 5th May and is being dealt with tonight. It is altering the law; it is making something unlawful which today is lawful and the House should consider carefully what it is doing.
  The Minister has told us that there are two things which the Monopolies Commission have recommended should be made unlawful—collective enforcement of prices and exclusive dealings; and I suggest to the House that we must be very careful to see that this Order is not doing any more than that. The Minister has told us that the Order is designed to enforce the prohibition of those two things. Does it do that or does it do more? I have the greatest doubt about it. The terms of the first draft Order, which was laid on 16th March, were hopelessly ambiguous and went miles beyond the recommendations of the Commission. That Order appeared day after day on the Order Paper of the House. Eventually it disappeared so that it could be redrafted.
  I could not help being struck by the fact that this matter had not received the most careful consideration, because the Minister who introduced the Order, which is to alter the law, talked about paragraph 11 of the Order, which does not exist; and it almost suggested that the matter had not quite received the careful consideration that His Majesty's Government would usually be expected to give to an Order which alters the law of England.
  Consequently, we approached the matter with a certain amount of suspicion. We approach it with perhaps more suspicion when we find at the beginning of the debate this evening the Minister of Local Government and Planning, the Eminence Grise, who appeared on

  653
  Friday and supervised the activities of the President of the Board of Trade; but the President of the Board of Trade, who is responsible for everything to do with monopolies, is tactfully absent this evening. That makes one a little suspicious about the proceedings.
  If we look at the terms of the Order itself we find an Explanatory Note, presumably intended for the enlightenment of Parliament and the country, which contains this statement:
  "The Order leaves untouched the right of an individual to fix and maintain retail prices in respect of goods which he supplies."
  That occurs on the evening of the day when we have all been studying a document which says that His Majesty's Government think it is wrong to leave
  "untouched the right of an individual to fix and maintain retail prices."
  Thus, when we are asked to alter the law of England in those circumstances, we approach the matter with a certain amount of care—we will not say suspicion, because we sympathise with right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they find themselves in the position which they occupy at the present moment, after a speech by the hon. Member for Ogmore which, I think, made the position so plain. We look at the Order with some care.
  There are two matters in the Order which cause anyone concerned with the law some alarm. I do not think one would say that the terms of the Order are obscure, but one thing occurs to me—and I may be entirely wrong about this; we shall no doubt have the advantage of legal assistance, and the fact that this is derived from a law which is one under which we do not usually proceed will not make it any less valuable to us. We shall be interested to hear what it is.
  I think the terms of the Order are fairly clear, but I ask the House to look what it says. After all, if any apology is needed, we are altering the law and I suggest that we are entitled just to look at it for a moment or two before we do so. What does it say?
  "It shall be unlawful to make or carry out any agreement to which this Article applies, if that agreement is intended or likely to have the effect of limiting the number of persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom as suppliers of dental goods or any description thereof."
  654
  The agreement to which the Article applies is, in effect, any agreement between two or more people which regulates the conditions under which goods are supplied. Let us suppose that we have an agreement such as is common in everyday trade in this country under which a manufacturer, to keep his factory fully employed, contracts to sell the whole of his output to a single distributor. How could anybody possibly say, according to the normal common sense of the English language, that that does not come under that paragraph 3? It does come under that. After all, the law is not always an ass, and it deals with the common sense of the English language, and we can all interpret it without a trained lawyer. I say that there is not the slightest doubt that that comes within paragraph 3.
  Is it intended to cover that or not? If it is intended to cover that, then I think the House ought to consider very, very seriously indeed whether it should not vote against this Order. In that particular case I happen to have been favoured with a letter from the Ministry of Health in which it is said that that is not the intention, but I do want to point out that it is not the slightest use having a letter from the Ministry of Health or from the President of the Board of Trade or the Attorney-General saying that something is not the intention.
  The judge in court has to decide what is the position, and if tonight we say that it shall be unlawful to do something the judge will not pay the slightest attention to anything said by anyone in Whitehall, notwithstanding how much more such a person may know about anything than anybody else in the country. Therefore, it is a matter for most serious consideration by the Government whether they ought to ask this House to pass an Order which clearly and unambiguously prohibits something which ought not to be prohibited because it is not within the mischief intended to be covered.
  There is a second example which is equally clear. It is a normal condition in a contract of sale for a wholesaler and a retailer to agree that the retailer will resell the goods only to the actual customer, bearing in mind that there are very many retail outlets and that there is a danger otherwise of jobbing among

  655
  retailers and the very process of multiplication of middlemen which is so often objected to by hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches. That is a perfectly common and usual practice. I say without the slightest hesitation that that is covered by paragraph 3 of the Order as it stands.
  Again, I refer to the letter on that second point. It says:
  "With respect, it does not seem to me that a condition such as you describe is intended or likely to have the effect of limiting the number of persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom."
  Of course it is. That is what it is for, and there is not the slightest doubt that it would have that effect.
  There are two examples of cases which are forbidden by this Order by which we are altering the law and making two things illegal which the solicitor to the Ministry of Health says it is not intended to cover. I suggest that that is a very serious thing indeed. It shows the danger of this form of legislation, and it shows more than that: it shows the hopeless muddle that the Government are in over this present business. Look at the position tonight. Who is it who is responsible tonight? The Minister of Health. Who is the man who is supposed to be dealing with monopolies, and who is parading about the country making speeches about it? The President of the Board of Trade.
  The first order ever made under the Act dealing with monopolies is being considered—a great moment; and we are told all about it. Where is the boss? He is not here. The answer is, because he is not the boss. The boss is here, of course—the Minister of Local Government and Planning—although it is very difficult to know what business it is of his, anyhow.
  I do ask the Government to take this matter quite seriously, because I ask them to come back again at the end to where we were at the beginning. We are altering the law, and we are altering the law with this wretched piece of paper—which is so insignificant that I have now lost it altogether. It is an Order with none of the ordinary procedure of Parliament. It is a flimsy piece of paper, so flimsy that the right hon. Gentleman did not even know what the contents were. I ask the Government to consider what they are doing.
  10.20 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) implored the House to restore the debate to an impartial level. I can only wish that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald) had listened to his adjurations, because the hon. and learned Gentleman attempted to advance a legal criticism of this Order. I would remind him that in our experience in the courts legal arguments are seldom advanced by resort to personal abuse.
  This is really a historic occasion, because I think that, for the first time in our history, the Government and Parliament are waging legislative war on the monopolists of this country. There are two aspects of this draft Order which we have to consider; one is the policy underlying it, and the second is the actual framing of the Order itself.
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now speaking of policy. We can deal only with what is in the Order, and I do not think that policy can be discussed now. I had to interrupt an hon. Member earlier for talking about policy. I am not prepared to allow a discussion about policy.
  The Lord Advocate: With respect, I was not going to develop the question of policy. I was merely about to say that there were two aspects, the question of policy and the question of the actual framing of the Order.
  What is contained in this Order is a reflection of the recommendations of the Commission's Report. Accordingly, in deciding whether or not we should accept this draft Order, the first thing we have to decide is whether we are justified in introducing this Order, in view of the Commission's Report. I think it was conceded by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) that every type of restrictive practice which has been complained of in this House was found to be present in relation to this particular monopoly—exclusive dealing, excessive prices, and Star Chamber methods of dealing with refractory members. The hon. Member finished up by saying that, in these circumstances, in his opinion—and as far as I could gather he was speaking for the Opposition—State interference was justified. That, of

  657
  course, is perhaps not strange, because the force of the evidence and the circumstances make such a conclusion inevitable.
  In these circumstances. I could hardly understand the criticism of the hon. Member for Hampstead when he asked the Government to justify the introduction of this Order, because it seemed to me that his hon. Friend the Member for Putney had already given the answer in advance. By some strange reasoning the hon. Member for Hampstead said, "Ah! but there was a minority Report by two members of the Commission, and accordingly the Government should have given more consideration to the views of those two members than to the views of the six majority members." It is quite understandable that some people think that minority opinion is more important than majority opinion.
  Mr. Brooke: I did not say what I am now being represented as saying. What I said was that there was a majority Report, and also a minority Report signed by two members, and that it would be helpful to the House if the Government would explain why they had not given attention to the views of the minority Report members.
  The Lord Advocate: That really means one of two things. The suggestion is, either that we have never as a Government considered the views of the minority, or that we should have accepted the views of the minority. If the hon. Gentleman says it is the first. I cannot accept that. Surely he cannot expect the House to believe that the Government introduced this Order without giving full consideration not only to the majority Report but to the minority Report. It seems to me that the answer was already given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in introducing this draft Order.
  If we make this an Order with legislative effect, those who by administrative action would be prepared to conform to the new standards have nothing to fear. If, on the other hand, there are people who will not conform by a self-imposed discipline to the new standards, then we should have legislative instruments to deal with that particular kind of case.
  Mr. Brooke: This is the first time that the Government have stated their
  658
  reasons, and that was what I was trying to elicit.
  The Lord Advocate: My right hon. Friend said so, if not in the same terms, certainly in the same meaning. I do not wish to be controversial in this matter.
  Mr. Heald: Why not?
  The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Why not?" Of course, one can be controversial. One could say that although lip-service has been given to the principle of this Order by certain hon. Members opposite, it was nothing more than lip-service. It would appear that they were willing to strike but afraid to wound so far as the monopolists were concerned.
  What were the criticisms of the trade association as evidenced by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead)? That this Order was unnecessary because there would be no hardship inflicted if it were not introduced. But would there not be? Are we entitled to assume that no people of this particular trade or industry would offend against the new self-imposed standards? Surely hardship would be suffered, not perhaps by the members of the Association, but by the public whose interest we try to protect, and whose protection it is the duty of the House to ensure.
  It is said again by the trade Association, "Why pick out this particular industry? What about the other industries? Why should you settle on this and leave the others untouched?" If that is worrying hon. Members opposite, I think I can put their minds at rest. In due course, and the sooner the better, we shall catch up with the other industries where this exists. The third criticism was that the wording was still obscure. That brings me to the criticism of the hon. and learned Member for Chertsey.
  May I point out to him, because apparently he did not appreciate it, that we are not just altering the law of England; we are altering the law of England and the law of Scotland in the one Measure. I am sure that if he had read the draft Order with that meticulous care which he tried to indicate he had done, he would realise that it was affecting the laws of both England and Scotland. Accordingly, I make no apology either to him or to the House for my appearance here at the Box, and I trust that the advice I

  659
  shall be able to give the House will be equally acceptable as that coming from any member of the English Bar.
  His two criticisms were that the draft Order, in the first instance, included a category of people whom it was intended to exclude—the sole agents—and, secondly, that direct dealing between the manufacturer and the consumer would be struck at by the Order. I think that I have correctly interpreted his two criticisms. My advice to the House is that the Order does neither of these two things. One has to look not merely at one paragraph of the Order in isolation but at the Order as a whole, and to bring a person within the mischief envisaged by this Order the conditions set out in paragraph 3 (1) have to be satisfied.
  It is only then we come to consider whether there has been a breach of either sub-paragraph (2) or sub-paragraph (4). In the first instance, we are dealing with the case of the sole agent, and it has to be determined that in no circumstances would the people concerned fall within the provisions of paragraph 3 (1). Looking at this broadly, as did the hon. and learned Gentleman, I would submit to the House that it cannot be said that the type of case he envisaged was covered by the type of agreement laid down:
  "between two or more persons … which provides for requiring the parties to the agreement … either absolutely or to such extent or in such circumstances as may be specified or described by the agreement or determined in accordance therewith, to withhold from any persons so specified, described or determined. …"
  It is too disingenuous to suggest that by describing B as the sole dealer in an agreement between A and B we are excluding every other dealer in the country. It is a question of perspective. If there is an agreement between A and B, A being the manufacturer and B the sole supplier in the first instance, we have not the type of agreement envisaged under paragraph 3 (1). When we come to consider the type of agreement under which the sole supplier will get all the goods from the manufacturer, but he in turn can distribute them to other dealers in the industry, we are not then withholding from "persons so specified, described or determined" the supplies of dental goods referred to.
  Mr. Linstead: These agreements will always be two-sided. The manufacturer
  660
  will undertake certain obligations and one of these obligations will be not to supply to anybody except B. Surely that is the case which is struck at by this paragraph?
  The Lord Advocate: No, because the paragraph says,
  "to withhold from any persons so specified, described or determined,"
  which means specified, described or determined in the agreement. In specifying B as the only supplier, we are not describing any other category of person, unless we are prepared to accept the argument that all the world except B is a category of people. No court would say that we are here defining a category of person within the meaning of paragraph 3 (1).
  Assuming that persons come within the mischief of sub-paragraph (1), they would then require to satisfy the court that the provisions of either sub-paragraph (2) or sub-paragraph (4) had been vitiated. How could it be said that by appointing B as sole agent for the distribution of goods, we intend or are likely to have the effect of limiting the number of persons dealing in these goods in the United Kingdom? I submit there is no substance whatever in the first criticism of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  With regard to his second criticism, in relation to the case where the manufacturer supplies a dealer on the understanding that the dealer will transmit the goods direct to the customer and not to other dealers, I would repeat generally the arguments which I submitted in respect of the interpretation of paragraph 3 (1), without going into details. Let us look at the general practice in this matter.
  Dealers do not look to fellow dealers for supplies of goods. Dealers are supplied by manufacturers or by sole agents and, in turn they, sell to the public. They do not normally sell to other dealers. Therefore, the other dealers are reliant not on their fellow dealers for their supplies but on the manufacturers or the sole agents or distributing agents. In those circumstances there could be no violation of the provisions of paragraph 3 (2) because, if the goods are available through these other channels, it would be impossible to prove in the court that the result of the policy was to limit the number of persons carrying on business as suppliers of dental goods.

  661
  In this connection, in relation to both this question and the previous question, the hon. and learned Gentleman apparently did not think it worth while to look at the provisions of paragraph 3 (3) which says that:
  "In considering any question under the last preceding paragraph"—
  that is, sub-paragraph (2)—
  "regard shall be had not only to the terms of the agreement but also to the surrounding circumstances and, in particular, the circumstances in the dental goods trade."
  That would enable the court to look at the whole of the surrounding circumstances to see whether the effect of either of the two types of agreement referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman would have the effect of limiting the number of suppliers of dental goods. Against that background, I submit that there is no ground for the fear expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  I trust that, as we are now dealing with the first of what may be a series of Orders in the warfare against the monopolists, price rings and restrictive practitioners in this country, the House will give unanimous approval to the Order.
  10.37 p.m.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: We are indebted to the Lord Advocate for an explanation of the view which the Government take on this disputed matter of interpretation. Far be it from me as a layman to venture my neck into such a dispute.
  Why we regard the Order with a certain amount of suspicion arises from the fact that we know that it is a very complicated subject and we also know—I do not think anybody on the Government benches denies it—that the original draft Order, which was supposed to carry out the recommendations of the Commission, was a subject of dispute not only between people outside but also between legal luminaries inside the Government between Departments. Although I am sure that the Attorney-General has devoted a great deal of attention to that, the fact remains that it appears to us that there is still some doubt on the matter.
  After all, the Lord Advocate will be the first to admit that it does not depend on what he says; it depends on the view of the court. Clearly, this question can
  662
  only be resolved by the courts. I assume that, if by any conceivable chance someone brings an action against a firm on the basis suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald) and it proves that he is right, the Government would see no objection to bringing in an amending order to make quite sure that the views that they have expressed as being their intentions are eventually carried out.
  The only other point I want to make relates to the Department which is bringing in the first order. The Minister of Health said that the main reason for which he was bringing in the order was that the industry provided the raw material for dentistry under the National Health Act. I do not think anyone would deny that, but it is, of course, a fact that his predecessor stated, some time ago, that they had submitted to the Monopolies Commission for inquiry a price-fixing cartel for dental goods because they knew very well that dentists were being held to ransom by a price ring. The fact is that the Monopolies Commission, after detailed investigation, did not find a shred of evidence bearing that out.
  In paragraph 211, part only of which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, the Commission stated:
  "We have been impressed by the high sense of responsibility which prevails throughout the industry for the provision of the best quality of goods and service to the dentists and by the general satisfaction with the existing situation expressed to us on behalf of the profession. It is clear that the British industry which can, if necessary, function independently of imports has been built up, and that it has coped remarkably well with the enormous expansion demanded by the National Health Service."
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the goods provided by this industry approached £6 million. I suppose that he has the latest figures, but the figures in the report did not approach that figure at all. Of the total products of the industry, quite a proportion—I think about one-quarter or one-third—is exported. If one takes that, and compares it with the cost of the dental service, which I believe was well over £60 million, I do not think a sum for raw materials of the order of £4 million in relation to £60 million can be described in the terms which the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor certainly desired the public to believe fitted the case.

  663
  I think it is only right to say that in fairness to the industry. Having said that, we agree that this Order carries out the recommendations of the Commission in respect of this particular industry. We shall regard it with interest as being the first of the Orders under the Monopolies Act. It will be a matter of great interest to hon. Members on all sides of the House to see how it is worked, and, in view of that, we do not propose to oppose the Order.
  Resolved:
  That the Draft Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Dental Goods) Order, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.

  SUNDAY CINEMAS, BATLEY
  10.43 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I beg to move,
  That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Batley, a copy of which Order was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.
  The purpose of this Order is to extend the Act to the Borough of Batley, and to empower the licensing authority to allow Sunday cinemas. The procedure under the Act is well known to the House. I would not intervene, even for a minute, were it not for an unusual feature which I shall mention in a moment.
  The procedure is laid down in the Schedule to the Act of 1932, in the Ninth Schedule to the Local Government Act of 1933, and in the Sunday Cinematograph Entertainments (Polls) Order of 1933. In accordance with this procedure, a public meeting was held on 9th April, and voted against Sunday opening. Again in accordance with this procedure,
  664
  more than 100 voters having demanded a poll, this was held on 21st April, when 4,500 electors voted for Sunday opening, and 3,600 voted against. There was a majority of 900 in favour of Sunday opening. This reversed a decision taken in 1946, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is satisfied that the statutory requirements have been complied with, and that it is his duty to lay the Order before Parliament.
  10.45 p.m.
  Dr. Broughton: As this Order affects the Borough of Batley, which is part of my constituency, as well as my native town, I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to say a few words on this subject tonight. This Order reverses a previous decision made in 1946. The Under-Secretary has given the House the figures at the recent poll and one of those votes was mine. But I am not disposed to disclose the way in which I voted. Nor have I any intention of discussing now the rights or wrongs of the Sunday opening of cinemas. All I wish to do is to draw attention further to the fact that the local authority acted in a perfectly proper way throughout.
  In 1946 a verdict against Sunday opening of cinemas was given by the people of Batley, both at a public meeting and at a poll. Recently, when the question was again raised, the Borough Council sought to ascertain the wishes of the people on this non-political but highly controversial subject. A public meeting was held at which the majority voted against Sunday cinemas. Consequently, as explained by the Under-Secretary, the electorate was invited to register its votes on 21st April. By a majority of 900 the people decided in favour of Sunday opening. I have given this brief account of events in order to make it abundantly clear that the Batley Borough Council acted quite properly and in full compliance with the Statutory requirements.

  BUS AND TRAM FARES, LEEDS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]
  10.48 p.m.
  Mr. Pannell: I want tonight to raise a matter of great public interest to the City of Leeds—a matter about which there has been considerable controversy. The Leeds City Council transport department has had under consideration for a great deal of time, since about last December, a revision in an upward direction of the fares in buses and trams. While it is within the power of the licensing authority to increase the fares upon buses, it has to seek the consent of the Minister of Transport in order to increase the fares on trams. It is rather the Minister's responsibility in the latter regard which gives me the right to raise the subject tonight; because this is where Ministerial responsibility lies.
  The Minister's agent in communicating to the public his decision, and his order in connection with the increases in tram fares, is the chairman of the licensing authority for public service vehicles, In this case it is Major F. S. Eastwood. I would refer to him for the purposes of this debate as the Traffic Commissioner.
  Now negotiations had taken place over a very long period of time in regard to this matter. It would be true to say that there had been many representations on behalf of the City Council through its Town Clerk to the Minister to bring these negotiations to a head. I want to make that abundantly clear at this stage, because it has been suggested that there has been procrastination on the part of the Leeds City Council in order to defer a decision until after election day. That is not true, but it is an important statement to make at this stage. I am now going to quote from a statement made by Councillor John Rafferty, who was until recently Chairman of the Transport Committee of the Leeds Corporation. He said:
  "On Tuesday, May the 8th 1951, on arriving at Leeds City Transport Department, I was informed by Mr. Findlay, the Manager, that the Traffic Commissioner had that morning intimated to him the fact that the Minister of Transport was prepared to make an order with regard to the increase of tram fares, if the Committee would accept an amendment with regard to workmen's fares."
  666
  You will appreciate, Sir, that in local government, in all matters of emergency the chairman always speaks and makes a decision on the assumed wishes of the committee. Councillor Rafferty goes on:
  "After considering the details involved, I, as Chairman of the Transport Committee, instructed Mr. Findlay to inform Major Eastwood, the Traffic Commissioner, that on behalf of the Committee I would accept the new position and would he, the Commissioner, indicate his wishes in regard to the publicity so far as the public were concerned. Mr Findlay thereupon telephoned to the Traffic Commissioner and I was informed by him, Mr. Findlay, that Major Eastwood had expressed the desire that no statement should be made public until the Minister of Transport had made the order."
  I repeat that Major Eastwood had expressed
  "the desire that no statement should be made public until the Minister of Transport had made the order."
  That is the gravamen of the charge this evening, that in effect, after binding other parties to silence, Major Eastwood himself broke faith with those with whom he was in negotiation and disclosed on election day the new schedule of fares. Councillor Rafferty goes on:
  "No further communication of any kind was made to me; I was therefore amazed to learn from various members of the public during early evening of May the 10th (Municipal Election Day) that all the newspaper placards in the City bore the words, 'Increased Tram and Bus Fares approved.' On reading the newspapers I found that in addition to indicating the Minister's decision. Major Eastwood was emphasising the distinction between the Corporations application and the actual decision.
  When I enquired of the Manager on May the 12th if the order had been made by the Minister, in view of the announcement, I was told 'No.' I then asked if any communication had been received of any kind concerning this matter and he told me of a letter from the Town Clerk of Leeds, which he had received the day after the election, Friday, May the 11th, which informed him that the Minister had the intention to make an order in due course.
  From May the 8th, when I consented to the requirements of the Minister regarding tram fares, up to and including today, May the 25th, the Manager has continued to assure me that no communication other than the Town Clerk's letter has been received by him.
  As statements to the Press do not in any way authorise fare increases, and in view of necesssary legal formalities and the changes that must follow the making of a Ministerial order, I cannot accept the implied urgent need for a public anouncement before the order is made without reference to the Chairman of the Committee responsible for the application."

  667
  There was a disclosure in the City of Leeds on election day at a time when all the wards in the city were up for election due to the reconstruction of the boundaries. There was a disclosure by a civil servant of what was considered by Councillor Rafferty to be something that was at least of a confidential nature.
  Anyone who has been connected with municipal affairs knows well how this sort of thing should have been done. The courteous way would have been for an intimation to have been made to the town clerk and the chairman of the committee. Councillor Rafferty, that this disclosure was to be made. It was not done in that way, and, it being election day, the matter got into the local papers. I refer particularly to the "Yorkshire Evening News" where it got banner headlines, that Leeds tram and bus fares were to be increased.
  As a matter of fact, Major Eastwood went beyond the bare announcement. He said that the Leeds Corporation applied for a 7d. minimum workman's return and that had been changed to a 5d. minimum. Where is the precedent for any traffic commissioner disclosing to the public what was the interim basis for the negotiations? Everybody who negotiates for fares—
  Mr. Kaberry: What negotiations?
  Mr. Pannell: Of course there were negotiations. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that it is usual for a corporation to put to the commissioner proposals, and he makes suggestions and counter-suggestions, and eventually a figure is agreed. It is the agreed figure which is published. There was no point in importing into all this on election day that the commissioner had saved the customers from a worse fate. As a matter of fact, it was a purely gratuitous remark that went into the Press statement. I do not know whether the newspapers got the impression that it was not quite right, but later in the day the banner headlines were relegated to page three.
  I suggest, and I hope I carry the House with me, that any public servant operating in a great city like Leeds would be aware of the emotional atmosphere engendered on election day. There was no hurry for this statement. There was
  668
  no need to make it at all. Anyone with a proper sense of what was demanded of him would not have disclosed it in this way, but would have deferred the statement until, at least, the day after the election. There was no point in making it, because the Minister had not then made the order. It was only a proposed order. I do not know whether the Minister has made the order now—
  Mr. Kaberry: He has, and they are paying the fares now.
  Mr. Pannell: At the time I had this information the Minister had not made the order—I quote from Mr. Findlay—and it was intimated plainly that the increase would date from some weeks ahead.
  I wish to address myself to the decencies of public life, which seem to have been abrogated in this case. Councillor Rafferty would speak as the chairman on the assumed wish of his committee, and one would have thought that in such a case the traffic commissioner would have paused before he acted in this way. I do not like to impute motives to him, but I believe he acted, possibly with some stupidity, with a belief that he was doing the right thing, but the people of Leeds, not all of my own political party, have expressed to me considerable surprise.
  Colonel Cyril Banks: Who are they?
  Mr. Pannell: There will be plenty of opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to speak, if he catches your eye, Sir.
  If we are to come to motives, I am forced to one conclusion by a speech made last evening by Alderman Croysdale, printed this morning in the "Yorkshire Post." He was speaking in the Westfield by-election, and I wonder whether this gives the answer. He said:
  "Why were Socialists making so much fuss about the disclosure of the transport fares increases? They were responsible for the increases."
  I do not think anybody would deny that.
  "There was only one answer. They knew they had put the fares up. They knew they would go up when the Conservatives got into office, and they were hoping to say at some future time: 'See the result of putting the Conservative Party in.' Their annoyance has arisen because their plan to throw discredit on the Conservatives has been discovered in time."
  What are we to assume from that? That there was a huddle between the Conserva-

  669
  tive interest and the traffic commissioner to make an unwarranted disclosure on the day? They are the words of the leader of the Conservative Party in Leeds. Yet we know full well that the negotiations and suggestions for this increase in fares had gone on over a long period. We know the electoral result, because the Conservative candidates say that the most was made of the traffic commissioner's statement.
  The traffic commissioner himself is appointed as the chairman of the licensing authority by the Civil Service Commissioners. His functions, in many ways, are of a quasi-judicial character. Ministers on both sides have always said that people in these offices should do everything to maintain public confidence in themselves, and I rise tonight in order that there should be a protest by one of the main parties to show that at least that part of the public has lost confidence.
  Why election day? The whole thing shows a degree of irresponsibility that I find it very difficult indeed to excuse. If this were just an isolated action, if it happened in another sphere, one could have left it; but when Major Eastwood came back from London—I do not know what his business was or whether he went to see the Ministry—he said, according to the "Daily Mail" of 25th May:
  "It is ridiculous to suggest I was trying to influence the election. To attack me on a question like this seems to me to be near sour grapes on their part. I did so because the city council—Socialist-controlled then—were extremely anxious for the fares to be raised quickly, as they were losing £2,000 or £3,000 a week."
  That disclosure has not remedied that position at all. The putting it back by one day would not have altered that position. He goes on then to say that he is attacked also because of a statement that he made at a meeting or dinner two years previously. Then he goes on to make this remarkable statement himself:
  "I merely made a suggestion to a Conservative and a Socialist present that they should stop nattering about each other and remember that Communism is the real menace."
  The answer to that is that this was not brought into the discussion. The traffic commissioner charged with judicial functions takes it on himself to lecture the Conservative or Labour Parties at a public function—that shows, again, that he is rather a talkative person, with not much sense of responsibility.
  670
  What is the truth of that incident? It is a fact that Alderman Beevers, who is an ex-Lord Mayor, and leader of the Labour Party in the Leeds City Council, attended a luncheon at the Guildford Hotel on 22nd July, 1949, in connection with the opening of an extension of Messrs. Wallace Arnold & Co.'s garage at Leeds. Major Eastwood, as traffic commissioner, declared the extension open. At the subsequent luncheon he made a speech in which he said
  "this country at the moment is run by five or six Communists."
  Whether we agree with that or not, it does not seem the type of statement that should be made at such a function by a man who was invited to attend it because of his position as traffic commissioner. And yet he made it. Turning to Alderman Beevers who was also at the function, although not as a speaker, and therefore in no position to reply, he also said:
  "That is what I think of Alderman Beevers."
  and he added:
  "Everyone knows my opinion of the Road Traffic Act."
  Yet that is the legislation he is supposed to administer. If he has such a poor opinion of it, one would have thought his self-respect would have forced him out of office. He delivered this opinion in a sneering and derogatory manner, and prefaced his remarks by saying he was not making a political speech. Alderman Beevers was not down to speak at this function, and it was not fair to make any personal reference to him.
  Alderman Croysdale, who was also a guest at the function, and one of the speakers, remarked to Alderman Beevers after the luncheon, that if it was not a political speech Major Eastwood had delivered he would like to have heard him make one. A principal of the firm at a later function expressed his regret at the treatment Alderman Beevers had received at the hands of the traffic commissioner. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that Alderman Beevers was placed in a very difficult position, where he had no opportunity to reply, when Major Eastwood took the occasion to give all sorts of opinions on political matters which had nothing to do with Alderman Beevers whatsoever.
  I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to inquire why the announce-

  671
  ment was made on that day, why there was that hurry at the last moment—because there seemed to be feverish activity in the last two days to see that it was made on that day—and also to find out the truth of the statement made by Alderman Croysdale that somehow or another the plot was discovered in time. That can only leave one with the impression that there was a huddle between the Conservative Party and the traffic commissioner
  Colonel Banks: Nonsense!
  Mr. Pannell: I would not expect anything else but nonsense from the other side of the House. Alderman Croysdale has made this statement, and I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to make the fullest inquiries into that and, in making them, to consider the whole background of this incident to see whether these are the sort of things likely to foster confidence either in the officials of the Department or in his own Acts.
  11.10 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I was anxious to hear the views to be expressed on this matter by my hon. Friend, because we can all appreciate how at election times feeling can be easily aroused. It would certainly be a matter of regret to me if any officers of my Department were to become embroiled in any controversies of this kind. In most of its activities the Department is not engaged in highly controversial political matters.
  On the question of the increased fares, I have noted what has been stated and I will give attention to these points later, but I think it is desirable that I should make this general statement, that all transport authorities in recent months—and in the case of local authorities it does not matter what party is in power—whether they are concerned with bus or tram services, have been met with increased costs, like every other business organisation.
  A great variety of organisations have come to the Ministry during the past 12 months to seek authority to increase their charges. In regard to any increase in bus fares, the licensing authority has full power to give a decision, but in regard to trams and trolley buses the decision falls to the Ministry of Transport. When
  672
  there is a dual application, as in this case, it falls to the licensing authority to decide the increase in bus fares, and to the Ministry to decide the increase in tram fares.
  The public hearing in regard to bus fares took place in Leeds on 28th February. I should like here to say that these are the dates I have in my Department, and that it is not possible for me tonight to go into detail with regard to many of the statements my hon. Frend has made, but he will appreciate that I shall give full and careful attention to everything he has said and examine it with great care.
  On 19th April, and again on 2nd May, the town clerk of Leeds urged on my Department the necessity of giving a decision. On 8th May the licensing authority received a letter from the Ministry indicating that the Ministry was prepared to agree to the increased tramway charges, subject to one modification dealing with a specific workmen's fare. The general manager at Leeds was asked for his observations on 8th May. If I have gathered the point made by my hon. Friend, he discussed the question with the chairman of the transport committee and they agreed to this modification.
  It appears to me that at this stage confusion has crept in about the difference between the Minister's decision and the Minister's Order. Later in the day on 8th May the licensing authority informed the Ministry of Transport that the transport committee had agreed to this modification, and on 9th May the licensing authority was informed by the Ministry—and I want my hon. Friend to note these dates—that a letter had been posted to the town clerk authorising these increases.
  At the present moment, I am unable to comment on the discussions that took place between the chairman of the Leeds transport committee, the general manager and the licensing authority, but I will go into that subsequently. On the same day, 9th May, the Corporation's transport office was notified by phone by the licensing authority that, on receipt of a letter from the Minister of Transport, the licensing authority would announce his decision, probably at the next day's public sitting of the court.
  Mr. Pannell: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is contested.
  Mr. Barnes: It is customary for the decision of the Minister to be conveyed immediately to facilitate the arrangements necessary to put any increased charges into operation, and it is possible here that some of the confusion is due to a misunderstanding of the decision of the Minister and the order which follows later. I agree that that has no bearing on many of the other matters which my hon. Friend has submitted tonight. Nevertheless, I can see that possibly the Minister's decision and Order may have been confused in that respect.
  On 10th May, the licensing authority received the Ministry of Transport's letter and announced the decision that the application had been approved. Knowing that my hon. Friend was going to raise this matter, I looked to see whether any previous application had been made by Leeds Corporation and what procedure had been followed on that occasion
  674
  and I was informed that in August, 1946, application had been for an increase in fares. The transport commissioner notified his decision on 5th December, and the Minister's letter, with a copy of the Order, followed on 9th December and came into effect on 29th December. I do not think that the procedure in this case was very different.
  With regard to the statements quoted this evening, I shall look into these and I ask my hon. Friend to accept at the present moment that his statements will be carefully investigated.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.

  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (ADMINISTRATION)
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (ADMINISTRATION)
  BRITISH GUIANA (PASTURAGE)
  BRITISH GUIANA (PASTURAGE)
NYASALAND
  African Delegates
  African Delegates
  Legislative Council (African Representation)
  Legislative Council (African Representation)
  UGANDA (NEW ROAD)
  UGANDA (NEW ROAD)
  NIGERIA (SCHOLARSHIP BOARD)
  NIGERIA (SCHOLARSHIP BOARD)
  ARMED FORCES, KOREA (FREE MAIL)
  ARMED FORCES, KOREA (FREE MAIL)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Ships' Crews, Cardiff (Canned Milk)
  Ships' Crews, Cardiff (Canned Milk)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Farmers
  Farmers
  Dorset
  Dorset
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
POST OFFICE
  Staff Associations
  Staff Associations
  Sorters
  Sorters
  Printed Paper Rate (Publicity)
  Printed Paper Rate (Publicity)
  Stamp Books (Advertisements)
  Stamp Books (Advertisements)
  Stamps and Stationery (Destruction)
  Stamps and Stationery (Destruction)
  BROADCASTING (RECEPTION, CORNWALL)
  BROADCASTING (RECEPTION, CORNWALL)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Class G Reserve
  Class G Reserve
  Trooping Contracts
  Trooping Contracts
CIVIL AVIATION
  London Airport Buildings
  London Airport Buildings
  Brabazon Aircraft (Airworthiness Certificate)
  Brabazon Aircraft (Airworthiness Certificate)
  New Buildings, Renfrew Airport
  New Buildings, Renfrew Airport
  Commercial Pilots (Licences)
  Commercial Pilots (Licences)
SUDAN
  Future Status
  Future Status
  Police Strike, Khartoum
  Police Strike, Khartoum
  HUNGARY (EXPULSIONS)
  HUNGARY (EXPULSIONS)
  CHINA AND N. KOREA (BRITISH WAR PRISONERS)
  CHINA AND N. KOREA (BRITISH WAR PRISONERS)
JAPAN
  Peace Treaty
  Peace Treaty
  British Ex-War Prisoners (Compensation)
  British Ex-War Prisoners (Compensation)
  FOREIGN OFFICE (SECURITY OFFICER)
  FOREIGN OFFICE (SECURITY OFFICER)
COAL AND COKE SUPPLIES
  Grade Prices
  Grade Prices
  Coking Coals (Blending)
  Coking Coals (Blending)
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (COMMODITY CONTROLS)
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (COMMODITY CONTROLS)
  SCOTLAND (HOUSING)
  SCOTLAND (HOUSING)
  BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION (REPORT)
  BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION (REPORT)
  WINES (DUTY RECEIPTS)
  WINES (DUTY RECEIPTS)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (SICKNESS AND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (SICKNESS AND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT)
  ALIENS (U.K. RESIDENCE)
  ALIENS (U.K. RESIDENCE)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

SAINT BENET GRACECHURCH BILL
2.35 p.m.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to make a short statement concerning the progress of business to-day. With your Lordships' permission, it is proposed that the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack shall make a statement on Persia between a quarter to four and four o'clock.

SUEZ CANAL NEGOTIATIONS
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the first 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 make known the terms of the offer in regard to the Suez Canal apparently rejected by the Egyptian Government.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, I have nothing to add to the statement which I made in reply to the noble Lord's Question on April 25. The arrangement that neither Government should comment at present on the substance of the present negotiations still holds good.

VISITS TO HOSTILE COUNTRIES
2.38 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what facilities, if any, are given for men or women to proceed through countries hostile to us to a country with which we are at war, and then to return to this country to carry on the propaganda of the enemy country; and to inquire whether, if such conduct is condemned, any punitive measures are applicable.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, since the abolition of the exit permit system there have been no general restrictions on British subjects wishing to leave the United Kingdom. Their movements cannot be controlled once they are in a foreign country. Where the conduct of any British national is treasonable, a prosecution may be undertaken. The decision whether or not to prosecute is, of course, a matter for the Attorney-General.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, the matter being sub judice, I should naturally not dream of pressing it further today. When it ceases to be sub judice, I should certainly be very grateful if a certain amount of bewilderment in my mind could be relieved, and if we could have explained to us what exactly is the moral difference between this case and, let us say, that of "Lord Haw-Haw."

NAVAL AIR SERVICE COMMISSIONS
LORD TEYNHAM: 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 say what opportunities are open to National Service men and others to obtain short-service commissions in the Navy as pilots and observers.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for putting down this Question. National Service men can at present apply to train in their National Service time for flying appointments in the Navy as pilots or observers. The Admiralty are now introducing a new scheme, which will become operative immediately, whereby these

197
National Service men will be able to volunteer during their training to transfer to a short-service engagement, which will extend their full-time service to four years. On transfer they will receive Regular rates of pay. All time served by these men after transfer, subject to their having been awarded their "wings," will count for gratuity at the rate of £175 a year. We hope that there will be a good response to this new scheme from all young men to whom the unique opportunity of service at sea and in the air appeals. At the end of their four-year engagement, these officers may volunteer for another four years, all of which will count for gratuity at the same rate. During this period they may be considered for permanent commissions in the Navy.
I should emphasise, of course, that this scheme is in addition to the existing arrangement whereby men between 17 years 4 months and 24 years may apply for a short-service commission of eight years at Regular rates of pay, with a gratuity on completion of £1,500. There will be similar opportunities for permanent commissions for these officers. These engagements carry varying periods of Reserve liability, up to seven years. The shortage of air crew is a most serious problem. In addition to permanent officers who specialise in flying, we shall now have two short-service schemes—the new four-year scheme for National Service men. with the option to extend it to eight years: and the existing eight-year scheme for all young men between 17 years 4 months avid 24. The House can be assured that we shall never rest until we have overcome the shortage.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, while thanking His Majesty's Government for their reply, which I am sure will be welcomed on all sides of the House, I should like to ask whether care will he taken to see that some assistance is given to these young men to obtain positions in civil employment when they complete their short-service commissions. I feel sure that if this assistance can be assured there will be no difficulty in increasing the number of candidates for short-service commissions.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I think there is a great deal in what the noble Lord has said. I can assure him that the whole matter is under consideration at the present time.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, arising out of that answer, can the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, say whether a pilot who does not volunteer for extended service is able to reach operational flying standard during his National Service period?
LORD PAKENHAM: It takes about two years, I understand, to become a pilot and a little less to become an observer.

TORQUAY CONFERENCE ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
2.42 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE rose to call attention to the results of the recent Torquay Conference of the Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. The Torquay Conference represents one more milestone on the rather tortuous road of international commercial relationships which we have been following for the past five or six years. The aim of this Conference was to free world trade from shackles and restrictions, but I very much doubt whether the Government's eventual aim of restoration of world multilateral trade will be found along the road on which the Government have been taking this country for the past five or six years. The general assessment, according to Press reports, of the Torquay Conference, is that it has been a failure, except, perhaps, from the point of view of the landladies and shopkeepers of Torquay, who I understand have enjoyed an unexpected winter season. The general assessment of failure is because of the small number and the small value of the tariff bargains that have been made.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships with many figures, but in deploying this case I must try to give a picture showing how small are the results in relation to our total trade. Out of a total import and export trade to the broad value of £4,900,000,000 a year, we have, as a result of the Torquay Conference, undertaken to reduce rates on imports valued at just over £4,000,000, and we have undertaken not to increase rates on imports valued at approximately £3,500,000

199
On the other hand, this country has obtained concessions on imports into Europe, South America, the Philippines and Turkey, which are valued at just over £18,000,000. I give your Lordships these figures to show the small results in relation to the total of this country's trade. As regards inter-Commonwealth Preference, United Kingdom preference on imports has been reduced in one case only that of dried figs. It is true that Commonwealth countries have agreed to this reduction of Imperial Preference, because it so happens that they do not send any dried figs into this country. Preference reductions on imports to Commonwealth countries from this country affect some £7,000.000 worth of trade. It is satisfactory that in the Torquay Conference the Government have shown their assessment of the high value which they place on Imperial Preference by refusing, during the negotiations, to go more than a very limited distance towards reduction and elimination. This view of the value of Imperial Preference has been confirmed by the right honourable gentleman, Sir Hartley Shawcross, the President of the Board of Trade, in a speech which he made recently at the function of the Federation of Empire Chambers of Commerce over which my noble friend Lord Llewellin presided.
I submit that the most outstanding feature of the Torquay Conference is the failure of this country and the United States to reach any agreement whereby substantial reductions in, or the elimination of, Commonwealth preferences were to be bargained against United States tariff concessions. The reasons for such limited bargains are not difficult to deduce. They are threefold. First, there is a limit to the extent to which any country is prepared to sacrifice the protective value of a tariff imposed for the maintenance of its own standard of life, and there is a limit to the extent to which any country will sacrifice the revenue which it gains by a tariff. Secondly, during the past few years we have seen a genuine effort by all countries to get rid of the system of import licences, embargoes, quantitative restrictions and quotas. As these practices are progressively got rid of, the importance of tariffs becomes increasingly enhanced. Except in the minds of a few dreamers of a free trade world, and in the minds, perhaps,
200
of some members of the Liberal Party who still cling to the doctrine of pure Free Trade, I believe that tariffs are now accepted in a trading area containing, on the one hand, a highly industrialised United States and, on the other, the rising competition in world trade from a revived Orient. While the wide inequalities in industrial capacity and the wide variations in the standard of living of the workers producing the same articles under widely different conditions continue to exist in various communities, the nations of the world are justified in taking such steps as they consider necessary to put themselves on an equal level of opportunity. That is what this country has been doing, and what other countries have been doing. It would be foolish not to admit that tariffs can be, and at times are, abused but the fact that one man gets drunk is not sufficient justification for the abolition of alcohol.
The third and most cogent reason for the small results at Torquay is the illogical working of what is termed the most-favoured-nation clause—the principle of non-discrimination. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade lays down in these rather ponderous words:
"Any advantage, favour, preference or immunity granted by any contracting party to any product originating in or destined for any other country shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like product originating in or destined for the territories of all other contracting parties."
The principle of non-discrimination has been accepted in this country, in the idealistic belief that it will assist in the revival of world multilateral trade. In fact, it has had quite the contrary result. Noble Lords will excuse my going back to those gentlemen, A and B, whom we all knew in our school days, when we were familiar with the number of times A ran much faster than B, or lifted a weight heavier than B, or performed some other athletic feat to the disadvantage of B. If countries A and B find it profitable to exchange concessions of approximately equal value, the most-favoured-nation clause insists that at the same time both A and B shall be compelled to extend these concessions to all other countries who are signatories to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Nations, like humans, have their failings, and one of the failings of the

201
individual is a dislike of giving something for nothing. The result is that country A hesitates to give a concession to country 13, because at the same time it must give it to other countries who are offering nothing in return. It is only natural that A and B should sit back and wait, calculating that if they wait long enough C and D will come to some arrangement advantageous to themselves, and that the concessions which they have tried to achieve will fall into the laps of A and B without their having to give anything is return. The Economist summed up the Conference very well on April 21, it these words:
"Torquay will have shown, not for the first time, that the most-favoured-nation clause can in certain circumstances be an impediment to tariff reductions."
That is the third reason why Torquay has failed to come to any comprehensive agreement.
The Havana Charter is dead, unratified and unmourned, but its mantle has fallen on this organisation, the G.A.T.T., whose signatories have been persuaded to put into effect all its main principles, including the objectionable provisions for non-discrimination. I must be fair in debate, and it is true to say that the protocol of G.A.T.T. provides that it shall continue for three years and can be renounced by any party on sixty days' notice. Meanwhile, these non-discriminatory provisions are having serious effects in throttling the prospect of valuable developments in inter-Commonwealth and Colonial Empire trade. I cannot reconcile the acceptance by His Majesty's Government of the principle of non-discrimination involved by the signing of G.A.T.T. and the tributes paid to the principle of Imperial Preference by the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers. They seem to me to contradict each other.
The Government deny that the principle of Imperial Preference has been compromised. On looking up the debate on the American Loan in your Lordships' House, I saw that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said to my noble friend Lord Swinton:
" ! I confess I asked about tariffs and preferences, and I was told what Mr. Winston Churchill said, I think, in another place, that so far as he could see on that matter we were completely free."
202
I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will be glad to hear those words repeated, because they support the contention of the Government that the principle of Imperial Preference has not been compromised. Nevertheless, sometimes the Government seem to be riding two horses, because the aim of the eventual elimination of Imperial Preference has been accepted by His Majesty's Government as the goal for their economic policy. Here I quote the words of the Prime Minister in another place, in the same debate—the same debate, the same subject but different expressions. He said:
"The elimination of all preferences would he such a step as would require a most substantial and widespread reduction of the tariffs and other trade barriers by a large number of countries. Thus it is recognised that the degree to which the final objectives can be reached at the initial stage can only appear at the negotiations themselves and as the result of a mutually advantageous settlement."
Therefore, I would submit that the eventual goal of this Government, if they can obtain concessions which they consider worth while, is the elimination of Imperial Preference.
I speak for myself, but on Imperial Preference I can think of no trading advantage or concessions which would compensate in value for the loss of this expression in terms of trade of a brother-hood of spirit and a community of interest which has carried the united British Commonwealth and Empire through the force of two world conflagrations. If you are illumined by the broad conception of the utter need to preserve the British Commonwealth and Empire, you will feel as I do. But if, as I fear, followers of Socialist beliefs feel no such urge in the international world they dream of and hope for, then they cart make out a case for the eventual elimination of Imperial Preference. That is where many of us on this side of the House part company with the Government, in our evaluation of the principles as being a symbol of something far greater than a mere expression of trade.
I should like to give your Lordships one example of the ill-effects of this principle of non-discrimination, in relation to the recent Pakistan Agreement. I must make it clear that I do not criticise the Pakistan Agreement; I believe that the Minister who conducted the negotiation

203
did extremely well, and made the best bargain possible within the boundaries which His Majesty's Government have set up by the principle of non-discrimination. A new Agreement with Pakistan was necessary, now that India is divided into two, and we and Pakistan conferred. Investigations showed that the United Kingdom were receiving preference on exports from us into Pakistan to the value of £16,000.000; on the other hand. Pakistan was receiving preference on her goods entering United Kingdom to the value only of about £4,000,000. Naturally, Pakistan felt that there should be some redress of balance. Normally, the two parties would have got together and hammered out a successful bilateral agreement. But not so in the case of the principle of non-discrimination and the G.A.T.T., which forbids any party giving a preference unless it is given to all and sundry. The value, therefore, evaporated, because we could not give a new preference, or increase an existing preference, to Pakistan, or she to us, without giving it to Germany, Italy and Nicaragua. The Manchester Guardian, not a paper usually favourable to a tariff policy, summarised this position on April 3 as follows:
"The preference margin enjoyed by British cotton piece goods is reduced in the case of grey cloth from 45 per cent. to 5 per cent.; for printed cloth from 42 per cent. to 6 per cent. The margin for rayon fabrics drops from 30 to 10 per cent—Preferences for cotton, rayon, or mixed household textiles are wiped out."
At the moment, no great hardship is felt in this country because of these reductions: there is a sellers' market, and the manufacturers can sell all they can produce. But one day competition will again be acute, and we shall not be able to negotiate an Agreement with Pakistan for a readjustment of the surrendered preferences. What we shall have to do will be to go cap in hand to the contracting parties of the G.A.T.T. and ask for permission to increase preferences. As the other nations are all our creditors, it is not likely that we shall very readily be given permission to do so. One can envisage future Japanese competition in the Pakistan market, and its effect upon those industries in this country where the preference has been wiped out.
I should like in this connection to ask the noble Lord who is to reply one question, of which I have given him private
204
notice. Have we the right under G.A.T.T. to increase or create preferences in respect of trade passing between Great Britain and the Colonies, including Southern Rhodesia and Tanganyika, without asking permission of the contracting parties? And, if we have that right, is it the Government's intention to make use of it should circumstances warrant? I believe that the need for freedom to increase inter-Commonwealth trade and multilateral trade within the sterling area is becoming increasingly important, because I feel convinced that our future dollar difficulties are far from solved. As your Lordships know, at the moment there is a great demand for raw materials and an intense industrial activity, due to world rearmament on both sides of the Atlantic. The dollar deficiency picture of 1947–48 has been drastically altered to our advantage by that demand for raw materials and rearmament activity. But at some time in the future rearmament has got to slow down; the outcome must be either war or a peaceful world settlement, because national incomes cannot indefinitely carry the present load of armament production. I believe that when this situation comes about the present industrial disequilibrium will be intensified, and once again we shall face the dollar shortage of 1946-47 in our trading accounts with the United States, if we are then still dependent on dollar imports for food and essential raw materials. And when that occurs, I believe that the threat to the standard of living of the British working man will be just as great as it was in 1946–47 and 1947–48.
In support of that argument I should like to refer to what Mr. Paul Hoffman said some time ago. He gave the warning not to celebrate too soon the closing of the dollar gap, because it was due to abnormal circumstances; and, further, that permanently to balance our account we needed to double the value of our 1949 manufactured exports to the dollar area. I beg leave to doubt the wisdom of this, or the ability to achieve this end by a policy based on the export by 50,000,000 people to a country of 150,000,000 people of permanently manufactured goods, most of which the 150,000,000 people can make just as well themselves. Surely, it is better to concentrate everything on a policy of

205
obtaining all the dollars we can by the encouragement of dollar trade, while aiming primarily at developing the raw material resources needed by us and the rest of the sterling area. We should develop inter-Imperial trade, protected by a system of Imperial Preference and, secondly, a multilateral sterling trading area within Western Europe. I submit that those two primary objectives—the development of the raw materials and the development of the multilateral sterling trade area—are wiser aims than a policy based on a belief that the revival of world multilateral trade is just round the corner.
The President of the Board of Trade said recently that the British Commonwealth could not be a self-supporting economic unit, but that we could at any rate go a long way towards that by developing the sterling area unit, having regard to our advantageous world position in raw material resources. The Commonwealth and Colonial Empire has a commanding position, as shown by the following percentages of the world's supply which are produced from the British Commonwealth: nickel, 70 per cent,; gold, 61 per cent,; jute, 94 per cent.; rubber, 63 per cent.; ground-nuts, 62 per cent. and tea, 83 per cent. I give your Lordships some of the main world raw material requirements and the percentages of the production within the Commonwealth in relation to total world production. The Torquay Conference seems to try to guard the principle of Imperial Preference, yet it still accepts the limiting restrictions on Empire development, apparently in the mistaken belief that it is possible to achieve this restoration of world multilateral trade. The President of the Board of Trade said proudly that the percentage, of Commonwealth trade vis-á-vis foreign trade was higher than before the war. That is true, but he forgot to say that the war drove the trade upwards, and that ever since the war there has been a steady decline in the amount of that trade.
I should like to make one thing clear. I am not advocating isolation, or detracting from the need for the greatest amount of world trade; but I believe that past experience proves that the development of inter-Imperial trade of itself brings about a higher degree of activity in world international trade. The United States of America have every right to conduct their fiscal policy in any way which suits them
206
best. We would no more deny them the use of tariffs than they should deny us the use of preference to the Commonwealth and Colonial Empire. If the Government's policy seems—as it does to me—hesitant and contradictory, the policy of the Party of which I am a member is firm and positive. For the record I should like to reiterate one section of the Declaration of Imperial Policy, which was published recently. It says:
"The Conservative Party has never supported any decision taken at Geneva, Havana or elsewhere, inimical to the general system of Imperial Preference, and we shall take all steps in our power to ensure that in the future our liberty in this direction is not impaired."
We reserve the right to restore that conception of ourselves that always prevailed before—the right to regard the British Commonwealth and Empire as an entity, however loosely knit together. This means that we pledge ourselves to re-examine from the start the working of the most-favoured-nation clause, and to see where it is harmful to inter-Imperial trade. While we shall keep all our Treaty obligations, as any successor Government are bound to do, we shall renounce any part of the Agreements which have been reached successively at Geneva, Havana, Annecy and now at Torquay, which may be prejudicial to Empire trade. There is no hesitation on our side where we stand in this matter of Empire Trade. We are for it. In conclusion, I would ask the Government where they stand on proposals for denouncing non-discriminatory provisions which hamper both Commonwealth and sterling area cohesion and expansion.
3.5 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I cannot let this opportunity go by without saying a few words in support of my noble friend's Motion, because I feel, as do many others, that these international conferences on tariffs have been most inopportune. When one considers the systems of world trade, one can divide them into four. There is, first of all, the barter system, about which I will not worry. There is also the old free trade, which most people regard as being as dead as the dodo. Then there is the system we had before the war, which was tariffs with or without preference. Next there is this fourth system which sprang up during the war and which may be called, briefly, licensing. To-day, over the

207
whole world the rule seems to be licensing, and the exception the ordinary tariff, outside the British Empire, which, so far as I know, is the largest area of free-ish trade in the world.
Why is this state of affairs continuing? There are several factors at work. First of all, there are the primary producing countries, who as a result of two world wars have greater urge than ever to be industrially self-sufficient. They have seen their imports cut off in two separate wars. The idea seems to be spreading in the primary-producing newer countries that the machine-minder is a more noble human animal than the man who tills the soil. Curiously enough, this is at a time when, in the older countries, precisely the reverse idea is beginning to prevail. Another factor is the new doctrine which has sprung up of essential and nonessential goods. This doctrine has sprung up all over the world, and the man who decides what is essential and what is not essential is the man who corresponds to our "gentleman in Whitehall." In these countries everything connected with industry is called essential, but the alarm clock which wakes up the worker in the morning, the garments he puts on to go to work, and the bottle with which he seeks oblivion from his toil in the evening, are all regarded as non-essential, and probably are completely barred as imports. It is a world-wide disease. The planners are rampant everywhere.
There is another factor, and that is the factor of fear. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that, outside these islands, the majority of the human race believes that we are on the brink of a Third World War; and those who have any money want to achieve safety for that money. It is well known that wherever goods can flow, it is not impossible for money to flow also, and only too often licensing systems are kept in being in order to prevent the flow of money by preventing the flow of goods. Lord Keynes pointed out that no trade balance can ever be relied upon to withstand the impact of heavy movements of money. Now there is abroad in the world a still further new idea, which is definitely post-war, so far as I am aware, and it has been bred by the sellers' market for raw materials. The old game in international trade used to be competitive devaluation of exchanges. To-day the
208
position is almost the reverse: the primary producers able to exploit the shortage of the few essential goods are tending to keep their exchanges at a much higher level than their price level would justify. In order to do this, they have to prohibit or restrict enormously the import of consumer goods which otherwise would bring down drastically their price level. At the same time, by these artificial exchange rates they are able to buy cheaply the capital that they require for further industrialisation. It is the old story: they will take our tinplate and our machinery and stop our cloth and our whisky; meanwhile, we have to pay the price on our food and raw materials.
Now, my Lords, the trade world is in a most extraordinary mess. Instead of world trade being left to the merchants of the world to handle, it is in the hands of bands of Government experts, who travel about all over the world and meet together and play their little games of loaded statistics. Will this situation persist? Some people clearly think it will not—otherwise these conferences would never have been permitted. Moreover, I see that fairly recently the International Monetary Fund has issued a warning to its members that by March, 1952, they must eliminate or substantially modify any such restrictions and other forms of discrimination against trade. The majority of the members of that international body will, I suspect, take no notice of the warning at all; and that leads me to believe that the International Monetary Fund will probably pick on us. It is rather like the situation arising when a young and timid policeman, or a prefect in a school, not too sure of himself, finds himself called upon to quell some disturbance. Instead of plunging into the midst, he tends to skirt about on the outside, and to pick on one of the more inoffensive bystanders. I am sorry to say that, so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, we have now descended into the category of the more inoffensive bystanders in the world to-day. Nevertheless, I hope that His Majesty's Government will give a pretty stiff reply when they get this intimation.
The United States have, I understand, drafted a Resolution to lay before the United Nations Latin-American Committee, which I believe is now sitting, asking them to study fiscal methods of stimulating investment in the under-developed

209
areas. While it may be necessary for the New World to study this question, we in the Old World have studied it already—and Imperial Preference is our method. And it is working very well. The British Empire is the largest area with the freest trade that I know in the world to-day. I do not believe there is any hope of reverting to the pre-war system of worldwide trade, controlled merely by tariffs, until the basic causes of the prohibitions and licences which I have enumerated have been removed. In many countries there is no hope of arresting a heavy and persistent inflation. In that case, fixed exchanges and the removal of licensing are quite incompatible as yet. The International Monetary Fund stands for both those two objects: which is it going to go for?
Then again, what of Japan? Anybody who was engaged in world trade before the war knows that the impact of their rice-eating industrialisation upon the meat-eating and solid house-dwelling industrialisation of Europe was then an unsolved problem. If there had been no war I do not know what would have happened. In my humble view, it is quite impossible to admit Japan into any system whereby goods are exchanged freely subject only to tariffs. Before we talk of going back to any system ruled only by tariffs, we must certainly enlarge the area of trade where total prohibition does not exist to-day, and abolish the factors leading to that total prohibition. Let the International Monetary Fund plunge into the mêleée and pluck out the real culprits by the collar, even if they are rather rough people, instead of looking for inoffensive parties round the edge. We must go on ever widening the area over which Empire trade becomes greater and freer, and increasing rather than decreasing Imperial Preferences. That is the principal method by which we have chosen to develop what are at present the under-developed parts of the world for which we have a responsibility. Other people may choose other methods for the parts of the world for which they have responsibility; but our method has served us well in the past, and we do not think it has served the world badly. I beg to support the Motion.
3.19 p.m.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, the Torquay Conference went on for six months, and in that time the
210
results achieved were very small indeed. It is not specifically to those results that I wish to refer, but rather to the principle behind those discussions for the reduction of tariffs and the continuation of the freeze on preferential rates. His Majesty's Government have said on more than one occasion that they are in favour of Commonwealth trade—and I am sure they are sincere in those statements. After six years of power, they have now learnt the value of Empire trade, and of the many valuable raw materials and other things with which it can supply us. But I cannot reconcile their expressed views in favour of Empire trade with their action in continuing those discussions to reduce the rates of tariffs and also of Imperial priorities. Both these tariffs and Imperial priorities intimately concern Empire trade, and any reduction in, them can only have an adverse effect upon it. As the noble Lord who moved this Motion has already said, the artificial obstacles to trade, such as licences and quotas, are steadily being brought down—and a great many of them have already been removed—so that tariffs and preferences will inevitably come more and more into their own, and will be far more effective. They are no longer the academic thing that they were immediately after the war, and any reduction in them must have a serious effect upon trade, and particularly for the smaller countries of the Commonwealth.
I realise that it is not easy for His Majesty's Government to reverse the position they are in, so far as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is concerned, because their position there is somewhat heavily compromised. We all know how it is that we have come to be so compromised through the conditions attached to the American Loan. But, in spite of the fact that it would be difficult to reverse that position, we cannot get away from the fact that we have surrendered a great part of the rights of control over our foreign arid Commonwealth trade; and, like convertibility, that is something that we just cannot afford. It is something which, so far as we are concerned, cannot go on for ever; and it will not. We had to give up convertibility pretty quickly, and we shall probably have to give up this Agreement as well. Both those things have sprung from the same cause. But this is of real detriment to the trade and the cohesion of the

211
Empire, and I believe that, knowing that fact, it is thoroughly unrealistic to continue with it.
In my view, this country will have to make a very big decision in the near future. By going on as we are going now, and have done since the war and at Torquay—in effect throwing away a large part of our Empire trade, and separating ourselves from the Commonwealth because we are in effect, so far as trade is concerned, treating Commonwealth countries just like any foreign country—we are becoming more and more like any small European Power, and more and more dependent upon the United States of America. Just because, as another Lord has already said this afternoon, we happen to have favourable dollar balances at the moment, we do not perhaps feel the pinch quite so hard in that respect. But that state of affairs will not continue for ever. We shall find out our weakness. We are certainly no longer in a position where we can attract the confidence that is due to us as leaders of the great Commonwealth and Empire. If we go on as now, as at Torquay and Geneva and other Conferences, it means that we are taking the easy way out, throwing up our responsibility as a great Imperial Power, with responsibilities beyond the seas to all sorts of countries and peoples. We are throwing away that responsibility, and we shall be taking the course that it would be all right for some small countries to take, countries with no responsibilities outside their own territories. But that is not the course for us, because we did not start off in the position in which they started. We have an Empire for which we are responsible, and at the moment we are not taking up those responsibilities in the way we should.
The other course which I believe is open to us is to regain our right to have an Empire trade policy, which at the moment, in point of fact, we have not got. We must have a policy which we can control ourselves, in consultation with other countries of the Empire, and not something that is at the discretion of about thirty or forty completely foreign countries, who do not in any way share the responsibilities that we have. Without such a unifying force as an Imperial policy—an Empire trade policy one might call it—of this sort, the Commonwealth countries must surely drift more and more
212
apart. Either the countries of the Commonwealth will look for foreign aid, and to leadership from foreign countries, instead of from us, or else, as some of them are already doing, they will turn to Communism.
I believe now that I can give a case which will in some way illustrate this point. One of the biggest disappointments of Torquay was the way in which Canada gave up a good many preferences, though I have not been able to get hold of the details, as I do not think they are yet available. Canada moves further and further into the orbit of the United States. That, of course, is not entirely a result of this Torquay Conference, or of the Geneva Conference. I believe—and this view, I know, is shared by a good many other people—that her action is a result of the treatment which she has received from the United Kingdom since the war. We have treated her with considerable indifference, and with little regard for the great help she gave us during the war. We have not treated her in any way as an Empire country. I should like to give a few figures to illustrate our indifference to trading with Canada—something which is quite inexcusable—and so allowing her to drift away from us. I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that these statistics are not "loaded." Between 1945 and 1950, the United Kingdom imports from Canada dropped by £20,600,000, whereas in that same period Canada took from us £106,000,000 more in goods than she had taken before. Her imports from us went up something like five times. If that points to one thing, surely it is to a reluctance on our part to trade with Canada and certainly not to any reluctance on her part to trade with us.
It would be interesting to compare those figures with the trade between Canada and the United States. Since 1947, Canadian exports to the United States have gone up by 900,000,000 dollars—that is to say, they have doubled. Her exports to us, as I say, have gone down by £20,000,000. That is a rather striking comparison. I know that His Majesty's Government say that a great part of the responsibility for the falling off to such an extent of trade with Canada has been due to our own shortage of dollars. But the Canadians did not want only dollars in return for goods they could send us: they wanted other things—things that we can provide,

213
most particularly iron and steel goods. It is interesting to see that since the war we have not sent to Canada all the iron and steel goods that we could have done. I have some figures here which will reveal clearly that we did not. Before the war, in 1938, we sent to Canada 88,000 tons of steel goods. In 1947, we sent only 23,000 tons and in 1948 we sent only 41,000 tons—that is, half the amount of steel goods that we had sent in 1938.
That was not the case with other countries, European countries, to whom we exported steel goods. The figures we sent to them did not drop after the war, they rose. To Finland in 1938 we sent 17,000 tons of steel goods, and in 1948 we sent 78,D00 tons—that is to say, the amount went up by four and a half times. To Sweden in 1938 we sent 12,000 tons of steel goods, and in 1948 we sent 89,000 tons that is, an increase of seven times—and Sweden was a neutral country during the war. But, worst of all, in 1938 we sent 4,000 tons of steel goods to Russia and in 1948 we sent 21,000 tons—or an increase of five times. Yet to Canada our exports of steel goods dropped by half. We cannot say that the dollar situation caused a drop in trade between Canada and the United States, and if Canada is moving away from this country we have only ourselves to blame.
Now, my Lords, His Majesty's Government have undoubtedly become more converted to the value of Commonwealth trade. Unfortunately, the damage is already done, and it will take many years to restore confidence in this country, and also to restore the flow of trade between the various parts of the Commonwealth most seriously affected—notably Canada. I believe that if the Commonwealth is to stay together we must have a wholehearted Empire policy, and not be led away from that aim by any such outside influences as the various promoters of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, because without that policy our Commonwealth is just going to split apart. A policy of Empire priorities is, to my mind, in no way exclusive, and will not cut off us or any part of the Empire from the rest of the world.
Such a policy is not anti-American, as it is so often thought to be. In fact, the worst blow the Americans could
214
receive from us would be the splitting up of the Empire, so that they would have to take care of the pieces. They already have enough burdens on their shoulders, without any more. We are in a position to understand the mechanics of our Commonwealth in a way that no other foreign country, and certainly not the Americans, can do, because, after all, we have always been much more closely concerned with it than anyone else. We know that it can exist only on a basis of preferential trade in some directions. But there are different kinds of preferences, and it is only well-meaning ignorance which makes people try to persuade us to throw over our tariffs in what they believe to be the interests of free world trade. But it does not free world trade as far as we are concerned it makes it much more difficult.
I do not believe that words are enough. It is not enough for His Majesty's Government to say that they believe in Empire trade, and think that no further action is required. There must be a policy for the promotion of Empire trade, and no policy to that end can possibly work so long as there still exists the "freeze" of preferential rates. I do not suggest that His Majesty's Government should contract out of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. That would indeed be a very invidious situation for them. But as the Torquay results show, most of the nations which are now party to the General Agreement seem to be just about at the end of the concessions they can make. They do not seem to have many more up their sleeve. Surely now is the time to make a change in the terms of the General Agreement. I believe that there is to be another meeting of the parties to this Agreement fairly soon, and instead of His Majesty's Government going there with one or two more concessions to make, let them take that opportunity of altering things a bit so as to restore to us the freedom of trade that we have lost.
3.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, think this debate has been a very useful one—particularly useful in that in his opening speech my noble friend Lord Balfour managed to see the wood through the trees, and tried to put the details in their true perspective and against the real background. I expect I express the

215
view of many of your Lordships in saying that I find it extraordinarily difficult to follow the results of these various conferences. They go on for a very long time, they produce voluminous reports, and they do not seem to lead to any great results. I am not sure that that is always a bad thing: it is much better to have no result at all than to have a bad result. I do not think it is very profitable to discuss these conferences piecemeal. What we should really like to know today from the noble Lord, who can always be very clear when he has something to be clear about, is: Have the Government got a policy; what is that policy; and does their action conform to it?
In trade policy, as in foreign policy or defence, it is necessary to have a long term plan. I should have thought that was the one thing which the planners ought to have. It is very important that short-term action should not compromise the plan. We should all agree that we have a great interest—I suppose a greater interest than any country—in promoting world trade, but practical realities do not always conform to academic theory. Countries increase their mutual trade when they are individually prosperous. If they are not individually prosperous, they do not increase their mutual trade. That applies equally to great and small countries. When the slump came in the United States in 1929 its external trade was cut as by a knife. Not only does the willingness of countries to do mutual trade depend upon their internal prosperity, but they will always do what they think necessary in their economic defence.
I must say that I think it is unwise today to try to make countries accept treaties or obligations which they may not be able to carry out. It is much better to have obligations which countries can carry out, and where they will go a little further than the bond because there is good will behind it, than to have a bond from which they will always be trying to escape. If you try to make the obligations too strict, you will find that the treaties will be denounced or that use will he made of "escape" clauses; that people will insist on "escape" clauses being put into the treaties; and then, quite unevenly as between one country and another, use will be made of those "escape" clauses which, when they are used, and, above all, when
216
they are used unevenly, may make a treaty almost valueless. That leads me to say that I believe—and I am not talking theory now—that it is profoundly unwise to try to prevent two or three countries from making mutual arrangements, beneficial to them all, unless they extend them to the whole world.
I am very glad my noble friend raised the question of the most-favoured-nation clause. That is perhaps the supreme example where theory and practice conflict. I was four times President of the Board of Trade and I had a good deal of experience of it. I came into a tradition where the most-favoured-nation clause was almost the Ark of the Covenant. Well, it is an ark in which I have progressively lost faith, and a covenant which I find more honoured in the breach than in the observance. One must use decent language in dealing with these international obligations, but I was going to say that a country "works a racket"; at any rate it performs a successful manoeuvre. Your Lordships may be familiar with the classical instance of a treaty made by Switzerland, I think, with Germany. The object of that treaty was, as between the two countries, to reduce the tariff on canned milk. Both countries had a most-favoured-nation treaty with the rest of the world, so that if the duty on canned milk was reduced by Germany for Switzerland, it had to extend all round the world. But they found a very ingenious way out of this, for it was arranged that the reduction in the duty was to be granted on canned milk the product of cows pastured at an altitude of more than 1,000 metres. The "M.F.N. "clause was, technically, left untouched, but the benefit extended to no one except the cows on the Alpine pastures.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was quite right in what he said in this connection; I have seen it happen over and over again that the "M.F.N." clause has prevented deals which would have benefited two or more countries, and by making both countries more prosperous would have enabled them to do more trade with the rest of the world. In the past we very wisely excluded Imperial Preference from the most-favoured-nation clause. I want to ask the noble Lord. Lord Lucas, this specific question. In my time, in all our commercial treaties when we put in a most-favoured-nation

217
clause, it was provided that it should apply only to foreign countries. The word "foreign" was the governing word. This, while obliging us not to give a concession to one foreign country which we did not give to another, left us free to do what we pleased with preference, and grant preference within the Empire. I want to know whether that practice and that formula is still maintained.
Let me take an example from the past, which I think will not be contentious, to show how valueless "M.F.N." may be when looked at from another aspect. Before the First World War, there was in existence the old Austrian Empire of which I think Mr. Gladstone said that if it had not existed it would have had to be created. In those days there was a tariff running round the whole of the Austrian Empire. They could put up their tariff as high as they pleased against the rest of the world, and they did put it up pretty high. But we did a great deal of business with the Austrian Empire. Then came the First World War. After that war was over, the Austrian Empire was split up and whatever value the Peace Treaty may have had ethnologically, economically it was disastrous. Vienna, the capital, which with its expertise, its knowledge of banking and merchandise was capable of conducting the trade of a continent, was left without a country.
There was a desire in the countries concerned to draw closer together, and I believe that would have been the best thing which could have happened in the world economically. If it had happened it might well have saved some territorial disasters which afterwards occurred. Some of those disasters might never have happened if the old countries of the Austrian Empire had been allowed to draw together in a customs union, I pleaded for it at the time; I am not being wise after the event. But after the Empire was split up, each of those countries—there were five or six of them—had, as part of the Peace Treaty, a mostfavoured-nation agreement with the rest of the world. So, without the consent of all the world they could not make their customs union. It was a great pity. Certainly we did far less trade with those individual countries who could not put tariffs against us than we had done before with the Austrian Empire. Therefore I say that I do hope we shall stop making
218
a fetish of "M.F.N." For my part I will support anybody who on good occasion "gives it the go by." It has ceased to be useful; it has almost ceased to be respectable.
I find this General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade a strange and illogical document. It brings in a large part of the Havana Charter which no one will ratify. The Government have been loyal to their word that they would not commit us to this awful thing without the approval of both Houses of Parliament, and I do not think it has their own approval now. A lot of the Havana Charter has been incorporated into our economic organisation by this General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and by Annecy and the rest of the Agreements. I must say that while we are bound by whatever treaty has been entered into, there is a time limit and there are also powers to get out of these things. Without committing us to what we should do, I say that we must hold ourselves free to get out of any entanglement which, on careful consideration, it is seen would be an impediment to us. One of the first things it would be wise to do would be to have an Imperial Economic Conference.
But is it not a very illogical document? If you read it, you find that customs unions are blessed, and groups of countries, large or small, are encouraged to make customs unions. I do not quarrel with that. I think you do more world trade as between large units. I have always thought so. But in customs unions, those within a union can increase or lower their tariffs against the whole world outside it. While blessing and encouraging customs unions, this odd document or collection of documents frowns upon the less rigid and less exclusive system of Imperial Preference. Exactly the same arguments which are used in favour of a customs union, which is a strict and comprehensive fence, can be used, and rightly used, in support of Imperial Preference. Therefore both customs unions and Imperial Preference ought to be equally commended.
This is not a case of theory. In fact, Imperial Preference has increased the trade of the Commonwealth and Empire with the rest of the world. If somebody says I put that too high, no one can challenge the statement that after we extended widely the whole range and scope and

219
mutuality of Imperial Preference at Ottawa, not only did the internal trade within the Empire increase but the trade of the Empire with the world outside increased to an even greater extent. We must reserve our full freedom to grant and receive preferences. If we have lost it, we must be free to recover it. That is not only a vital Commonwealth interest; I believe I do not put it too high if I say it is a world interest as well, because I am sure it is only if the British Commonwealth and Empire is economically strong that it can play its full part in the economic and strategic defence of a free world.

PERSIA
3.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of repeating to the House the Statement which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? It is as follows:
"In my statement to the House yesterday I mentioned briefly the demands with which the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company delegation to Teheran had been presented, and I promised to take an early opportunity to inform the House of the subsequent course of events.
"When the Company's delegation met the Persian representatives yesterday evening, it made proposals which were designed not only to meet the Persian Government's present and urgent need for funds, but also to indicate an arrangement which would maintain the efficiency of the industry and be consistent with the principle of nationalisation. The terms of the aide-mémoire in which these proposals were set out have been published, but it may be as well for me to summarise them here. Briefly, the content of the aide-mémoire was:

(1) That the Company was prepared to place at the Persian Govment's disposal £10,000,000 as an advance against any sum which might become due to the Persian Government as a result of any eventual agreement, on the understanding that the Persian Government would undertake not to interfere
220
with the Company's operations while discussions were proceeding;

(2) That the Company would, moreover, pay to the Persian Government £3,000,000 a month, from July onwards, during such time as might elapse until an agreement had been reached;

(3) That the Company proposes, as a possible basis for an agreement, that the Persian assets of the Company might be vested in a Persian National Oil Company and, in consideration of such vesting, the National Oil Company should grant the use of those assets to a new company to be established by the AngloIranian Oil Company. The new company would have a number of Persian directors on its board, and would operate on behalf of the Persian National Oil Company. At the same time, the distribution of oil products within Persia itself would be transferred to an entirely Persian-owned and operated company on favourable terms as regards the transfer of existing assets.

(4) As regards the Persian demand, made at the meeting on June 14, that the Company should hand to the Persian Government the total proceeds, less expenses, from the sales of Persian oil, from which 25 per cent. would be deposited in a mutually agreed bank against any claims which the Company might prefer, this was not acceptable. The point was made that the delegation had gone to Teheran for discussions, and regarded it as unjustifiable that the Persian Government should put forward a demand of this kind before discussions had even started. Moreover, the delegation was confident that when it had had opportunity to explain in more detail the complicated machinery of the Company's business, it would be plain to the Persian representatives that their demand would be neither commercially possible nor acceptable to any company.

"It seems hardly necessary for me to expatiate on that offer. Money for present needs is there, acceptance of the principle of nationalisation is there, and an obvious foundation for fruitful

221
partnership is there. His Majesty's Government are convinced that all fair-minded opinion will regard the Company's proposals as eminently reasonable.
"Unhappily, however, the Persian delegates required only half an hour in which to arrive at a contrary opinion. They declared that the Company's proposals conflicted with the new Persian nationalisation law and expressed stir-prise that the Company's delegation should have found need to ask for a postponement of the meeting arranged for June 17 in order merely to formulate such proposals. The Persian delegates concluded by saying that they had no authority to deviate from the letter of the nationalisation law, and in consequence considered discussions closed.
"The leader of the Company's delegation thereupon replied that, even if the proposals were not consistent with the letter of the law (which had never been agreed to by the Company), they were consistent with the principle of nationalisation and would undoubtedly fit in with the liberal interpretation of the law; that it was apparent that the Persian representatives were expecting complete capitulation to their demands without discussion; that he noted with regret the Persian decision to break off the talks; and that he was left with no alternative than to communicate that decision to London and ask for instructions.
"His Majesty's Government have learned of this development with concern, not only for the future of the Anglo-lranian Oil Company and the free world supplies of oil but also for the future of Persia itself. In the area of the Company's concession the natural wealth of the region has been made available to the Persian people. Their labour, combined with the capital expenditure and the technical and organising skill of the Company's engineers and administrators, has built up a vast industry. Thanks to this fruitful co-operation, the Persian Government have enjoyed a consistent and growing source of income, which the Company itself offered in 1948 greatly to increase. Thanks also to this industry, tens of thousands of Persian
222
workers at present enjoy housing conditions, educational facilities and health and other social services on a scale which the working people of Persia enjoy in no other part of the country. These are facts which are attested in the Report of the International Labour Office entitled Labour Conditions in the Oil Industry in Iran, published last year in Geneva. The Company has made, and is making, an immense contribution towards raising the standard of living in Persia. Indeed, the seven-year development plan on which such high hopes had been;placed, but which, unhappily, appears to have been abandoned, had as an essential factor the receipt by the Persian Government of increased royaltie— freely offered by the Company—from the production and sale of oil. It seems that the present Persian Government are blind to the needs of their country.
"Instructions are being sent to the Company's delegation to return to this country. Meanwhile, we propose to follow up the application we have already made to the Hague Court by a further application for an indication of provisional measures to preserve the rights of the United Kingdom, pending a decision on the merits of the case. We for our part still desire to see a stable, independent and prosperous Persia. Our feelings in that regard have not changed and will not change.
"The difficulties that have arisen in Teheran must not for a moment obscure the difficulties of our people in Abadan and the oilfields. I want them all to know that we at home realise the strain and burden of anxiety under which they have for long enough been working. Riots, abuse, misrepresentations, and uncertainty about the future have made conditions most difficult for them. They, better than we, will know that it needs but slight deviation from their high technical skill to cause a mistake which could lead to irreparable damage and most serious disaster to life and not only within the installations for which they are responsible, but perhaps throughout the neighbouring townships. While our people are there and responsible for operations, I am confident that no such mistake will be made, and that they will continue to do their duty.

223
"As I have repeatedly informed the House, His Majesty's Government are not prepared to stand by idle if the lives of British nationals are in jeopardy. It is the responsibility of the Persian Government to see to it that law and order are maintained, and that all within the frontiers of Persia are protected from violence. If, however, that responsibility were not met, it would equally be the right and the duty of His Majesty's Government to extend protection to their own nationals."
4.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the Lord Chancellor for that full Statement. We should all agree, from what we have read to-day, and from what we have now heard, that the offer made by the Company's delegation was very beneficial to Persia and should have been treated as a fruitful basis for further discussion. We should all wish to be associated with the message of sympathy and good will which formed part of the Statement, and which will go out from both Houses of Parliament, and from the whole country, to our fellow countrymen in Persia who are doing, and will continue to do, their duty, however difficult and onerous their task may be. All noble Lords on these Benches—and I am sure I speak also for noble Lords in all quarters of the House—wish to associate ourselves, without any qualifications whatsoever, in the firm declaration with which the noble and learned Viscount's Statement closed: that we
"are not prepared to stand by idle if the lives of British nationals are in jeopardy. It is the responsibility of the Persian Government to see to it that law and order are maintained, and that all within the frontiers of Persia are protected from violence. If, however, that responsibility were not met, it would equally be the right and the duty of His Majesty's Government to extend protection to their own nationals."
I should like, on behalf of all those who sit with me, to assure the Government that in that firm, wise and right Statement they have our fullest support.
4.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, your Lordships' House will be grateful to His Majesty's Government for the steps they have taken to keep Parliament and the country fully informed of the course
224
of events in Persia. The Statement which we have just heard, and especially the concluding sentences in it, leave no doubt as to the gravity of the position. We earnestly hope that the Persian Government will keep under control a situation which they themselves, and they alone, have created. If, unhappily, it should prove to be otherwise, then the course which His Majesty's Government have announced that they will take is the only one possible, and will therefore have the approval and support of the nation, and, we trust, of the whole Commonwealth.

TORQUAY CONFERENCE ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
4.6 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH): My Lords, in resuming the debate on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I should like to echo the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in saying how grateful we are to the noble Lord, not only for tabling the Motion but also, if he will allow me to say so, for making one of the most constructive speeches that I have heard from the other side of the House for some time. If I congratulate the noble Lord, I hope that he will not think that I have any sinister purpose in so doing. However, I would, first of all, join issue with him on one of the few things with which I did not agree in his speech—because the longer he went on the more difficult I found it to quarrel with much of what he said.
I would not write down the Torquay Conference as a failure. The noble Lord gave some bare arithmetic. My figures are somewhat like his. We received benefits affecting U.K. exports worth £70,000,000, in terms of 1949 trade; we had concessions withdrawn on trade worth £10,000,000; and we made concessions on U.K. tariffs affecting U.K. imports worth about £7,800,000. But the profit and loss account in hard figures is, surely, not the only thing to take into consideration. As the noble Lord quite rightly said, perhaps some of the critics

225
of Torquay forgot to take into consideration that this is the third Tariff Conference we have had since 1947, and that at each succeeding Conference concessions are more difficult to find. But surely other and valuable things were achieved at Torquay. First, we have the prolongation of the concessions of Geneva and Annecy, which are now, with relatively few exceptions, carried on until 1953. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that that is most valuable. We also hope to haw as new members Turkey, Peru, the Philippines, Korea, Austria and Western Germany. I feel that the noble Lord will agree that the inclusion of Western Germany is a step in the right direction; it brings her tariffs down; it is a step forward in the direction of the goal at which we are aiming, to have a world of lower tariffs; and it also makes Western Germany subject to the other provisions of the General Agreement, which are the code of commercial conduct. This is a subject to which I shall refer later. On balance, I think we have benefited even more than the Torquay landladies to whom the noble Lord referred.
Perhaps at this stage I may refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax. I hope he will not mind my saying so, but I was really shocked at what he said. I was shocked because it illustrated the fact that he had not even troubled to read the White Paper before he made his speech, since the figures that he said he could not get are in that White Paper. He wanted to say that it was the fault of this country that Canada had given up the preferences she grants. Surely he should have acquainted himself with the fact that all the preferences we enjoy in Canada are non-contractual; that Canada has a sovereign right to give them up at any time without consulting anybody. As a matter of fact, she did consult us, and we were able to have the concessions she made at Torquay put in a manner which did not affect us greatly. But the important thing is this—and I am now quoting from a speech made by Mr. Abbott, the Canadian Finance Minister, in the Canadian House of Commons on May 8, 1951. Mr. Abbott said:
"This Government has never taken a rigid or doctrinaire position on the matter of preferences, either with respect to their retention or modification."
226
Mr. Abbott ended by saying:
"In the course of the Torquay tariff negotiations, as was the case at Geneva and Annecy, in order to obtain valuable concessions from United States. Western Europe and other non-Commonwealth countries we agreed to the modification, and in some cases to the elimination of certain margins of preference."
But Mr. Abbott went on to say that, in spite of that, his Government were still adherents to the principle of Imperial Preference. If the noble Lord had acquainted himself with that, he would not have made the statement he did.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: The noble Lord will not deny that Canada is moving closer to the United States and away from this country, and that is an exceedingly unfortunate development.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will not trouble to deny that. One has to take into account the geographical position of Canada. But to say that it is the fault of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that Canada gave up these preferences at Torquay, is something which is just not correct.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I think the past few years speak for themselves.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Now I will return to Torquay. I think perhaps noble Lords might be interested to know that the Torquay Protocol is open for signature until October 20, and that the concessions agreed at Torquay have to be brought into force by the signatories to the protocol thirty days after signature. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to sign the protocol; and to give elect to the concessions made on the United Kingdom tariff as from September 1. That is the most convenient date for our customs administration. According to my present information, all except one of the Orders will be subject to the negative Resolution procedure. In addition, one change of duty has already been incorporated in the Finance Bill.
May I follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, in what he called the "failures of Torquay"? It was regrettable and disappointing to everybody that we could not reach an agreement with the United States, with Benelux or with Italy. I think both we and the United States were

227
very conscious of the unbalance of trade as between the United States and the United Kingdom, and every effort was made to come to an agreement. It is quite true that, in the negotiations as between ourselves and the United States, the question of Imperial Preference arose and the Commonwealth countries were consulted. We could not see our way clear, after these consultations, to make the concessions in the preferences which the United States wanted made. Having said that, if I leave aside for one moment the question of preferences, I may say that we should still have had very great difficulty—it would have been almost an impossibility—to reach agreement on the basis of the bare figures of the concessions that were going to be made on either side without any regard to preferences. Not only does the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade talk about reciprocal concessions, but it also talks about mutually advantageous concessions. That is what we could not find between the United States and ourselves—anything to satisfy the criterion of mutual advantage. As regards Benelux, noble Lords know that they are a low tariff group of countries. They are countries which find it difficult to make any further concessions in their tariffs, and in view of all the circumstances we were quite prepared to have an unbalanced tariff agreement in favour of Benelux. But we could not obtain the assurances we felt were necessary regarding guarantees against import restrictions, and so we failed to come to any agreement. In the case of Italy, the failure to come to any agreement was due to the absence of concessions on their part which we felt were necessary.
I now come a little nearer to the point raised by the noble Lord. Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and also by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. It is true that the Torquay Conference was held under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or G.A.T.T., as it is called. Now G.A.T.T. was intended to be a measure to take the place, in the interim, of the International Trade Organisation which was to be set up under the Havana Charter. The International Trade Organisation envisaged something far wider than "G.A.T.T."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: What is "G.A.T.T."?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is a hateful word, but I used it to save my breath and the time of the House. It is an abbreviation of "General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I thought a "gat" was a gun. I thought it was a thing you carried in your hip pocket to use against another fellow.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I believe some people do, in another country.
The reduction of preferences or tariffs was only part of the policy behind the International Trade Organisation. There was a desire on the part of all who were parties to the Havana Charter to bring into existence a far better code of commercial conduct throughout the world. I am not going to weary your Lordships with all it expressed, but if you turn to Article I of the Havana Charter you will find the objectives clearly set out. Most-favoured-nation treatment is the very basis of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and it is the only sanction which that instrument can possibly have. If you do away with the most-favoured-nation clause in the General Agreement, you might as well tear up the General Agreement altogether. It was the intention of His Majesty's Government to recommend to Parliament, if conditions at the time were favourable, that we should ratify the Havana Charter; but our minds have changed. The reason for that is that we have now learned authoritatively that it is not the intention of the President of the United States to ask Congress to ratify the Havana Charter. That means that the International Trade Organisation will not come into existence; and it appears that American thought is that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade can be fashioned into an instrument to take the place of the International Trade Organisation.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May I ask whether His Majesty's Government agree with that view?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am coming to that. This really brings into existence an entirely different situation and it is one to which we shall have

229
to give some very careful thought. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has almost taken the question out of my mouth. Can the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade be made an effective instrument to carry out the objectives envisaged by the International Trade Organisation? Can it do those things? Well, my Lords, I should not like to say anything that would militate against the successful conclusion of any future discussion of this question, but any such discussion will have to be approached with some care. The Americans themselves may have considerable difficulty in pursuing what they think is the correct end. There is the matter of American internal legislation. There is the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, which, as we think, stands as something of an obstacle. We also think that the customs administration of the United States may have to undergo some drastic alteration if the General Agreement is going to take the place of the International Trade Organisation.
That, then, is the position at the present time; and I think noble Lords opposite will agree that this is not the best time to start once again an international conference on these issues when there are so many difficulties in the world upsetting trade in every country. But His Majesty's Government support the doctrine of multilateral trade on which the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is based. It is true, as Lord Balfour of Inchrye said, that our present obligation is such that we can withdraw from it on giving sixty days' notice. But the reason why we support the General Agreement is that we are a great trading nation. We are the greatest trading nation in the world, and as such, we have some very heavy responsibilities. I always listen with great respect to any words uttered on the subject of trade and commerce by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. He was four times President of the Board of Trade, and I suppose he knows more about this subject than any other noble Lord in this House. He would, I am sure, agree that the United Kingdom holds a very substantial position in world trade; that we have a very great contribution to make; and that, having been leaders in world trace for hundreds of years, we cannot forsake our position overnight.
230
I do not think it is necessary for me to remind your Lordships what our position is in Commonwealth trade. If the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, had done me the honour to read the speech I made is this House on June 6, on the occasion of the Economic Debate raised on a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, he would not, I think, have said some of the things he did say to-day. I said in that debate:
"I need not remind your Lordships of the vital importance of our trade with the sterling Commonwealth. In 1950 we drew almost two-fifths of our food and little less than one-half of our raw materials from the sterling area, and we sent to them a little under one-half of our total exports A great expansion of our trade with the rest of the sterling area has been a buttress of our post-war economic recovery, and no efforts should be spared to reinforce this vast structure of trade, the greatest in the world."
We must export somewhere and we must get our other imports from somewhere else than the sterling Commonwealth. I agree that we have not seen the last of the expansion of either our exports to sterling countries or our imports front them. But what are we going to do in the meantime? Lord Balfour of Inchrye said that on this matter he was not a subscriber to isolationism. We cannot, indeed, afford to be solationists. We have got to get our exports into every country in the world, and we cannot do that and be isolationist about the principles of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We have to keep up at all costs our dollar exports—certainly while our present unbalance is so serious.
I do not think, therefore, that the support of His Majesty's Government for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is inconsistent with His Majesty's Government's policy on preference. Article 17 of the Havana Charter, while it calls for a reduction in preferences, also recognises their existence as legitimate and says that any negotiation that is entered into in that regard must be entered into on the basis of mutual advantage. There is nothing inconsistent in that. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, was quite right in saying that the freezing of the preferences was one of the bargains in connection with the Loan Agreement of 1945, and it was eventually spelled out in the Havana Charter. The answer to the question he specifically asked me—I acknowledge the fact that with his usual courtesy

231
he gave me prior notice of the question —is "No." We cannot, under the freezing rule, create any new preferences, nor can we increase any existing preferences. That is why we cannot do it in the case that the noble Lord mentioned.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord has said that that was so under the G.A.T.T. (as it is called), which can be denounced on sixty days' notice. He also related it in some way to the American Treaty. I thought that I received the firmest assurance, when the American Treaty was going through, that we were in no way bound in the matter of Imperial Preference.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We cannot create new preferences and we cannot increase the preferences in existence at that particular time.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Does the noble Lord mean that, as from the date of the American Loan—the original American Loan—we were not entitled to create any new preferences?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is right. That is the answer to the question that the noble Lord asked me. I will now reply to the question put by Lord Swinton. G.A.T.T. recognises the existing preferences, and there is nothing to prevent us, if the need arises, from negotiating an agreement on the most-favoured-nation clause, with the usual exception for Imperial Preference.
There was another question which both the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, asked me. After telling us what the policy of the Conservative Party is, they asked: What is the policy of His Majesty's Government on Imperial Preference? I think I can be just as plain as was the noble Lord. Speaking for ourselves—and we hope the other Commonwealth countries would take the same view, although I should point out that, so far as non-contractual preferences are concerned, they are entirely sovereign in the matter—this is our position: we would not cancel or reduce any preference which we granted unless we were satisfied that the corresponding advantage to be gained from the reduction of foreign tariffs really outweighed the advantages
232
of the preference to us and to the Commonwealth. Naturally, there might be occasions where we should have to look at the balance of advantage or disadvantage particularly from the point of view of the United Kingdom, but generally we always consult the Commonwealth and consider these matters in relation to the Commonwealth.
Through it all runs the principle of mutual advantage, and that is why, if I may stress the point again, the policy of His Majesty's Government is not inconsistent. It is no more inconsistent than was the policy of the Conservative Government in 1938, because the Conservative Government in 1938 did reduce some preferences. I will not weary your Lordships by reading them out; I have a substantial list here of preferences which were reduced in 1938, obviously because the counter concessions offered showed a balance of mutual advantage.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I should like to ask one question before the noble Lord leaves this point, because I want to be clear and to understand the reply that the noble Lord is giving us. As I understand what he says, the Government's policy is that they would be willing to negotiate the reduction of any preference if they saw a compensatory trade advantage to this country in some other direction?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: And to the Commonwealth.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: And to the Commonwealth. Therefore, in the Government's view, the door is open to the complete elimination of Imperial Preference, if sufficiently great compensatory advantage is obtained. That is the question I want to put.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord is putting to me a hypothetical question.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: No.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In his own speech, the noble Lord put many conditions, and he went so far as to say that there never could be a compensatory advantage.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: In my view.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In your view—and those factors would have to be taken into consideration. I think perhaps the noble Lord went a little too far that way, but we say, quite definitely, that we should not cancel or reduce any preference which we give unless we were sure that the compensating reduction in the foreign tariff was—I will not say overwhelming, but on balance decidedly in favour of ourselves and the Commonwealth.
LORD HAWKE: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I ask him a question arising out of it? Suppose that an entirely new article of trade comes into purview—atomic energy tubes, for instance, or something like that. Are we precluded from giving a preference on a completely new article like that?
LORD LUCAS or CHILWORTH: At the present moment, as I said at the opening of my speech, owing to the fact that the Havana Charter will not now be ratified, and the International Trade Organisation will not come into existence, we have an entirely new set of circumstances arising, and the position of ourselves, America and the Commonwealth will have to be carefully considered. In those circumstances, I am not prepared to give the noble Lord any answer to that question.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: May I ask the noble Lord this question?—I am sorry to interrupt him again. Do I understand that under the freezing of preferences we could create no new preference? Is that so?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes.
LORD FAIR FAX OF CAMERON: It is?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes. I think I said that. We cannot create any new preferences. That is the position in which we stand to-day. I have tried to be as plain as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, paid me the compliment of being. We shall go into these negotiations when they come (I do not know when that will be: when the conditions are ripe for them) because we think we have a great contribution to make. I repeat that this country has a great record. It has learnt a great deal in being not only the greatest trading country in the world but also for
234
a very long time the greatest creditor nation of the world. A country is not the greatest creditor nation of the world without learning many lessons the hard way. We have learnt those lessons, and we shall deploy all that knowledge and, I hope, wisdom, to the benefit of everyone else.
4.40 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the courtesy of his full reply. I will not attempt to re-argue the case, but I must say that I thought it a depressing reply. The purport of his speech is that the Government continue to adhere to the most-favoured-nation clause; that the Government are willing to put Imperial Preference in pawn, to be redeemed by any bidder who will come up to their reserve figure. As to our freedom within the Empire family, the speech gave a depressing answer to my question asking whether or not we were able to increase existing preferences or to create a new preference. I thank the noble Lord for his frankness in a reply which to me, and to many other noble Lords, was extremely disappointing in that particular regard.
There are two points I want to put to the noble Lord. As I understand it, he said that the intention of His Majesty's Government had been to bring the Havana Charter before Parliament for ratification. That will not now be done because America is not going to ratify. The noble Lord said the question which the Government asked themselves was: Can the G.A.T.T. be welded into an effective instrument to do the job of Havana? My question is: Should it he done without Parliament having an opportunity of discussing those particular things which would have been discussed had the subject under consideration been the ratification of the Havana Charter? I hope the Government will take note that we on this side of the House, and Members on the Opposition Benches in another place, should feel that we were being side-tracked (and I know the Government would not wish to do that) if there were not an opportunity for Parliament to debate some of the provisions which we should have debated had the question been one of ratifying the Havana Charter.
The noble Lord announced that as from September 1 the Government are to adopt the Torquay proposals all of

235
which, except one, need a negative procedure. The one which takes the affirmative procedure, he said, was incorporated in the Finance Bill. This House cannot touch the Finance Bill, so it seems a little curious that the Government should put forward affirmative Resolution procedure, to use the words of the noble Lord, in relation to something that we cannot touch in this House. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider that point, and perhaps, through the usual channels, we might have some information on it, because the noble Lord is virtually saying that the Government are following a procedure which denies this House an opportunity of exercising its right.
If I may be allowed, I must raise a point that was made by my noble friend Lord Swinton. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas said that under the Anglo-American Loan arrangements we were bound to freeze existing tariffs and not to impose any new tariffs. In Column 801 of Hansard of December 18, 1945, my noble friend Lord Swinton said this:
"It is clear that we enter the Conference absolutely free. We shall only reduce or eliminate a preference if we get an agreement which is better for us and for our partners."
We were absolutely free. But the noble Lord says we were not free. We cannot debate this matter any more this afternoon, but there is a direct conflict here. We understood from the Government that We were completely free. We now hear from the noble Lord that we were not free, in that we were unable to increase preferences and that existing preferences had to be frozen. As I say, we cannot pursue this matter any further to-day, but there is that conflict which I feel must be cleared up—and I am sure the noble Lord will welcome an opportunity to do that as much as we should. With those remarks, and thanking the noble Lord for his reply, and also my noble friends who have supported me in this debate, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Motion, by leave of the House I should like to say that I cannot conceive that Parliament will not have an opportunity of discussing any proposals for a revised General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In answer to his question about the affirmative Resolution procedure, I would
236
say that in order to increase a rate of duty one has to have an affirmative Resolution. We cannot debate this matter this afternoon, but I do not want it to go on record that I said that the rule about preferences was part of the Loan Agreement. What I said was that it was part of the bargain made at the time of the Loan Agreement. If the noble Lord will look up the whole history, he will see that it is a very highly technical business.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I can speak again only by leave of the House. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was in the House in 1945: that was our misfortune. But one of the most important issues raised in the whole of the debate on the American Loan, and one of the conditions on which we supported it, was that it was made perfectly plain to us that we were not committed on preferences in any way at all. That matter was raised in another place, and it was answered there by the Prime Minister. I raised it here and the noble Lord, Lord Keynes, said, if I may summarise it, that I was perfectly right: that there was no such commitment, and that it was very well understood in the State Department. We raised this specifically, because in regard to this matter the whole of the White Paper was very obscure. I raised it in the debate and the Lord Chancellor confirmed what Lord Pakenham had said—namely, that while We had agreed that we go into trade negotiations, the whole essence was that we were in no way committed in regard to preference that we and our Imperial partners were to be the sole judges of the merit of any agreement We should make; and that unless we were satisfied we would not make it.
Both Lord Pakenham and the Lord Chancellor made it perfectly clear to us, and quite frankly it was on the assurance given in that debate, and which I believe has been carried out ever since and has never been challenged in America, that we voted for the American Loan. It would be most unfortunate if there were now to be any doubt on any question in regard to that matter. There is a clause in the Agreement about import arrangements: that if you purchase from one country, equally you must purchase from another—I put it rather loosely. There was a question as to whether we could

237
buy anything in any quantity we pleased from our Colonies, and as to whether that applied also to the Dominions. That was quite a separate matter. That was a matter of the volume of imports and the limitation of imports. It had nothing to do with tariffs, and on tariffs we were to be absolutely free.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
4.50 p.m.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE rose to call attention to the Report of the Joint Select Committee appointed to inquire into Accommodation in the Palace of Westminster (H.L. 26 of 1945) in so far as it affects the precincts of the Abbey and of Parliament Square; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, a short time ago, on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, your Lordships discussed the erection of the building which it was proposed to put up on the site of the old Westminster Hospital. Thanks largely, I think, to the able way in which he put his case, your Lordships agreed—and so did the Government—to consider very seriously the effect of that building on the precincts of Westminster Abbey. There is a further precinct to which I wish to draw attention to-day—namely, Abingdon Street. In my opinion, it is just as possible gravely to impair the view of the Abbey of Westminster by inappropriate buildings erected in Abingdon Street as by buildings on the site of Westminster Hospital.
In the second place, I want to put right an expression of the views of the Joint Committee, of which I happened to be Chairman, because those have been put, I think, in a way which the Committee certainly did not intend, in a reply to a Question asked by my noble friend Lord Halifax, on November 19, 1947. Lord Henderson then said:
"Following the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Accommodation, 1945, it is proposed eventually to erect a building for members and officials of both Houses of Parliament on the Abingdon Street site which bas recently been acquired with money voted for that purpose."
The Committee said nothing of the kind. If your Lordships will turn to paragraph 19 of the Committee's Report, you will see it stated that:
238
"The Committee recommend that, pending a decision being arrived at as to how this increased accommodation shall be found, premises in Abingdon Street and Bridge Street be acquired so that parliament will be in a position to make such use of them here-after as may be desired."
What the Committee had in mind was this. The Committee had already agreed that it was essential that a senior officer of each House of Parliament should reside within the Palace of Westminster. So far as this House was concerned, it was felt that that officer should be the Yeoman-Usher of the Black Rod, because he is the Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain, who is responsible for the whole Palace of Westminster. When Parliament is not sitting, his jurisdiction includes the House of Commons. There is only one part over which the responsibility of the Lord Great Chamberlain does not extend—and this is a matter which is always discussed and argued at some length, as I think Lord Morrison knows. It is claimed in some quarters that the minister of Works, as he is now called, is responsible for the Great Hall of Westminster; the Minister of Works claims to be Keeper of the Great Hall. Others claim that the Lord Great Chamberlain is responsible. But apart from this conflict, the whole Palace of Westminster is the responsibility of the Lord Great Chamberlain; and his deputy is the Yeoman-Usher of the Black Rod. We found accommodation for the latter official, but we did not find, as a Committee, that it was possible to provide accommodation for the Lord Chancellor.
We had evidence from a succession of ex-Lord Chancellors, and from the Lord Chancellor of the day, that in view of the very heavy work which the Lord Chancellor has to perform—and as your Lordships know he has to change his clothes in order to appear as we are accustomed to see him on the Woolsack, or when he sits as a judge when the House is carrying out its judicial function—it is necessary for him to be resident either in or very near the Palace of Westminster. Therefore, the Committee suggested that we should acquire this house in Abingdon Street with a view to having flats made to accommodate the Lord Chancellor, and possibly, also, such officials as would find it a great convenience to live near at hand. Your Lordships, too, would no doubt find it convenient to have living close by officials such as the Clerk of the

239
Parliaments, and the Clerk of the House of Commons. There was no question whatever in our minds of putting up new buildings in Abingdon Street. I am not blaming Lord Henderson. In the first place, he was not replying for his own Department. Secondly, I have to confess to your Lordships that I am much more to blame than he was.
I say that for this reason. At the last meeting of the Committee when we were considering the various means by which we could increase accommodation in the Palace of Westminster, and discussing the proposal of Sir Charles Barry for buildings additional to the Palace, to my great joy a member of the Committee proposed as a Resolution that:
"The Committee recommend that this proposal"—
that is, Sir Charles Barry's proposal for completing the Palace of Westminster—
"should be studied as a long-term project."
That was the only recommendation the Committee made for new building. But, unfortunately, when the proofs were sent to the printer that sentence was omitted. Therefore, Lord Henderson naturally knew nothing whatever about it. I, as Chairman of the Committee, regret to say that I am responsible for the omission. And I did not find it out for a very long time afterwards—in fact, not until my attention was called to it by the member of the Committee who had proposed the Resolution. As he was a Member of the other place, I suggested that he should call the attention of his own House to the matter. But that was in 1945, when we had many other things to occupy our attention, and it was not done.
I think the whole Committee were unanimous in supporting this proposal of Sir Charles Barry, and I hope that your Lordships will look at what was proposed because we have included it as an Appendix to our Report. You will find it on page XXI, and the elevation on page XXII. My view is that it is a most attractive scheme. It would give an elevation on the side facing Parliament Square very much like that on the river side of the Houses of Parliament. It would provide a wonderful finish to Parliament Square, and it would hide that conglomeration of motor cars which is to be seen in New Palace Yard. It would make available 247 rooms for Members of Parliament or
240
Government offices, and a further eighty rooms in which papers could be housed. I admit that it is a very expensive proposition. At the time when the Committee considered it, the scheme was expected to cost £2,100,000. I am afraid that it would probably cost double that amount now. To realise what it means, stand outside the Palace, look towards Whitehall, and visualise the prospect with Westminster Abbey on one side and such a frontage on the other. Of course, some of the plans would have to be slightly modified. I think your Lordships will agree that it is no longer necessary, in the place where the present Grand Committee Room stands, to have a covered place for horses. Not many of your Lordships ride down to the House in these days. You will also see there is a large entrance at the corner of Whitehall. Traffic in these days is very different from what it was, and obviously the entrance would have to be more or less where it is now.
I am not suggesting for a moment that the scheme should be put in hand now. A few days ago I had a letter from my noble friend Lord Schuster in which he said he warmly approved of my putting this proposal forward, and that the more he thought about this plan the more he liked it, provided it was not done now, because he did not think the financial situation of the country was such as to make it advisable. I go much further. I am in the happy position of having been opposed to the members of the Front Benches of all three Parties in the support which they gave to the erection of the buildings for the Festival of Britain on the South Bank. I am one of those who come into London by Hungerford Bridge, and as I watched those buildings going up, I found among those who travelled with me in my third class compartment almost universal agreement that they were a terrible waste of man-power and materials which could have been much better used in erecting houses for the working classes or for building schools. I am afraid we were rude about those buildings. We called the Concert Hall, which I think is one of the most ugly buildings I have ever seen, "Morrison's Folly," because it is much too large for chamber music and too small for any orchestral concert to be given at democratic prices except at a loss. We called the great top on the other side, "Morrison's Circus."
I am not going to suggest that we should put this building up now; nor do I expect the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, to pledge himself some day to the erection of Sir Charles Barry's scheme. I hope that long before that scheme is put into operation the noble Lord will be sitting on this side of the House, and not on that. What I hope he will say this afternoon is that he will agree that no building shall be erected in Abingdon Street until this House has had an opportunity of seeing a sketch of the elevation, discussing the proposal and approving it or otherwise. By putting this Motion now, I am giving an opportunity for the Ministry of Works to consult Parliament and not say that they have already called for tenders and any alteration is too late. Many years ago, I heard a story about the Lord Wemyss who was the great-grandfather of the present noble Earl. He met the architect who had been made responsible for building the new War Office in Whitehall and said to him. "You have a great opportunity now to complete the Palace of Whitehall." The architect's reply was, "But that would only be Inigo Jones over again!" The result has been that ever since we have had to endure the pepper pots we see on the roof, and the heavy columns and cornices. I suppose I am the only member of your Lordship's House who has been into every room in the War Office and can say that those rooms are just as bad from the inside as the building is from the outside. On this occasion we do not want it said that we had only made Sir Charles Barry over again.
As an old First Commissioner of Works, as the Minister used to be called, I used to say that the buildings erected by the Ministry of Works were often better than any others we could find in a provincial city. Their post offices, telephone exchanges and so on were admirable, and I mourn, not only as a friend but as an admirer, their chief architect, Sir James West, who died only a day or two ago. There are many fine architects in the Ministry of Works, but I think they have one failing they sometimes forget the importance of the question of elevation. I sometimes wonder whether somebody from the Ministry of Works went over to New York and thought it might be advisable to have some parts of London something like New York. If we tried to
242
copy any part of New York in London, we should be committing an atrocity no less than if New York tried to copy any part of London. Let us stick to our own methods of building.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, was kind enough to show me the elevation which had been proposed by the private company who had originally intended to build in Abingdon Street. It is an extremely clever sketch, taken from about the Cœur de Lion statue, so that the new buildings were somewhere in the distance and naturally reduced in size owing to the perspective. But when we come to look at it carefully, we see that the buildings are two storeys higher than Nos. 6 and 7, Abingdon Street, which exist there now. My view is that these new buildings would have been two storeys too high. It is possible that the plan was approved by the Fine Art Commission. We expect something better from the Ministry of Works than we expect from private builders—I throw that as a gift to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, because I am strongly opposed to nationalisation. The Ministry of Works are responsible for historic buildings and it is their duty and privilege to see that the Abbey of Westminster remains for generations to come the place not only of worship arid praise, but of beauty and of admiration. I hope we may be able to open it up and make it even more attractive and beautiful than it is to-day. For that reason, and in order to say that any scheme to the contrary has not the support of the Committee of which I was Chairman, I have put down this Motion. I beg to move for Papers.
5.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stanhope has asked me to say a word or two on this Motion. I am afraid that I am not entirely in agreement with what he has said. My noble friend presided admirably over the Committee, who were convinced that this House, and both Houses of Parliament, were due to expand it future and that more space was necessary. The proposal which my noble friend has put forward is at present the only way by which we can obtain more space. But there is another side of the question: there is the æsthetic point of view. Westminster Hall is one of few buildings in this country of its size, shape and history, and it is

243
a legacy of two remarkable Kings—perhaps not very good Kings, but men of exceptional character. The result of building an arcade along the side of the roadway would be that the north facade of Westminster Hall would be entirely obscured: one would see nothing of it at all except by going on to the roof. That is my only objection to the noble Earl's proposal, but I cannot help feeling that it is rather an important one.
5.10 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I should like to confine my remarks upon the subject now before your Lordships' House to the question of Abingdon Street. Before doing so, however, I feel that I should declare to your Lordships that I have, in a way, a personal interest in the neighbourhood, though not in Abingdon Street itself, in my capacity as Architect to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster for the purpose of rebuilding the canonical houses which were destroyed or damaged in the war. I hope that this fact will not make your Lordships feel that I should not join in this debate. The houses to which I refer surround the Little Cloister, which, as I expect your Lordships know, lies near the Chapter House, to the west of Old Palace Yard, behind number five, which is usually known as Labouchère's house. It is this house which abuts upon the King George V Memorial, and which is eventually to be demolished, in accordance with the scheme approved by both Houses of Parliament in 1939 and confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in this House in 1947. The reason for the proposed demolition was to complete the Memorial, and to unmask the whole of the fine stone facade of the so-called Paladian House next door, which faces north towards Parliament Square and which is at present partly hidden by the projection of Labouchère's House. It is only when Labouchère's House is demolished that my professional interest will be apparent to the eye from Old Palace Yard; and even then it will have no direct bearing upon Abingdon Street itself. I therefore hope that I may be allowed to say a few words about that street, as, although I am not directly concerned, my close connection with the neighbourhood has furnished me with some knowledge of the problem.
244
With regard to any new buildings in Abingdon Street for I fear that there must be new buildings there—I believe we have an opportunity seldom vouch-safed to us. We have the opportunity for once of avoiding the accusation so often levelled against us, that we are too late in expressing our views about planning. I therefore feel that we should all be most grateful to the noble Earl for bringing this question into prominence now, before any detailed plans for the street have been laid. Now is the time for us to express any views that we may hold, and to put them forcefully before His Majesty's Government. If we agree that Abingdon Street will have to be rebuilt in some form—and I am afraid that we must; I think it would be asking too much, and the need for accommodation is too great, to plead successfully that the whole area up to the Abbey Precinct Wall should be left entirely vacant—then I suggest to your Lordships that there are four aims to be borne in mind.
First, the view of the Abbey from the south-east, from Lambeth Bridge and the other side of the river, must be preserved, by keeping the buildings in Abingdon Street low, no higher, in fact, than those which at present survive. Secondly, much-needed accommodation should be provided for some of those who work in the Palace of Westminster—a suggestion which has to some extent been pointed out in the Committee's Report, and for which Abingdon Street seems to me eminently suitable. Thirdly. the splendid 14th century Precinct Wall of the Abbey, and that remarkable building known as the Jewel House, which is at present almost entirely hidden, should be preserved and exposed to view. Fourthly, the ever-present need and continually expressed desire for a place close to the Abbey for memorials to the distinguished sons and daughters of our country and Commonwealth should be explored in this connection.
I believe that all these aims can be turned into realities if a long low building is constructed throughout the length of Abingdon Street: a building of three storeys only, above the ground floor level, these three storeys containing the accommodation to which I have referred. I put forward the suggestion that the whole of the ground floor should be open throughout its length and width, so that

245
the building would stand on columns forming an open colonnade or loggia, on lines similar to the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, or the market hall of, appropriately enough, Abingdon, or High Wickham, and many other similar examples which I could call to mind. This loggia would provide a view of the Precinct Wall behind it, and would form an admirable setting for memorials and commemorative sculpture.
I would further suggest that the northern end of the new Abingdon Street building facing Parliament Square could be terminated by the white stone facade of the Paladian House in Old Palace Yard, to which I have referred, if this were taken down and re-erected a few yards behind its present frontage line. I read in the Report of the Joint Select Committee on Accommodation in the Palace of Westminster that, although the frontage of this House (No. 7) is fine, it has, to quote the words of the Report, "a perfectly abominable interior." Therefore, I can see no harm in preserving the facade only, and moving it as I suggest. If that were done, the Jewel House would be exposed to view, Lest any noble Lord doubt the practicability or wisdom of this manœuvre, may I recall to mind that an exactly similar feat was accomplished when the 18th century facade of 37. Great George Street, at the corner of Storey's Gate, was taken down and re-erected on the Horse Guards Parade in 1910, to form the front of the Paymaster General's office? It is next door to the Admiralty.
Finally, my Lords, may I put in a most earnest plea that, whatever is done with Abingdon Street, or, indeed, with all the sites and properties which adjoin this Palace, the Abbey and Parliament Square, the excellent plan, put forward as a longterm project, by the Architectural Review, and often referred to in your Lordships' House, should not be lost sight of, so that the through traffic routes may be sufficiently diverted to enable all who come here in their thousands, for work, prayer or sightseeing, to appreciate the beauty and significance of these time-honoured precincts—and, incidentally, to enable the Lord Chancellor and his successors in office, if they have a lodging built for them in Abingdon Street, to proceed there in safety, to the admiration of all beholders.
5.20 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, so much and such interesting ground has been covered by the noble Lord who has just spoken that I will confine myself to one point, and that is strongly to support the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, that Abingdon Street should be cleared before any final decision is taken about what is to be re-erected on that site. In previous matters of this sort—I refer to the debates on the new Colonial Office and Carlton House Terrace—we were told in each case that we had come too late upon the scene; that we should have paid half-a-crown at Burlington House to see the proposals, and made our objections then. I suggest that those buildings (like St. Paul's Cathedral and Canterbury Cathedral) are not the property merely of the citizens of Westminster, or of the Houses of Parliament, but that they belong to the Empire. It is not easy for people in Ottowa or Canberra to come to Piccadilly to see what proposals are intended.
The second objection was one of expense, and in these days that is a very real objection indeed. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, with courteous obstinacy or obstinate courtesy, stating that the expense involved put all these plans quite out of the question; and he produced as a trump card that one specific proposal would cost as much as, I think he said, £150,000, I suggest that we owe Westminster Abbey 1,000 years of recognition in the past and, I hope, another 1,000 years in the future, so that the £150,000 which Lord Morrison mentioned, albeit casually, represents only about £3 a week if we look backwards, or 30s, if we look backwards and forwards. I mention this because it is my own cherished hope that these houses in Abingdon Street will be razed to the ground, so as to give us a magnificent view of the East Wall of College Garden and the south-east view of the Abbey. When we remember that a hundred years ago Victoria Gardens, on the south side of Victoria Tower, were a huddle of ugly slums, should we not again do what our ancestors did a century ago and carry on to the west more green grass and more grey stones, and open up the Abbey in an even better precinct than it has now?
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, your Lordships have returned, I hope for good, to your own House, renovated, I trust, to your satisfaction, and are already looking forward to further improvements to the amenities of this House. Not only that, but your Lordships are giving me, or any representative from the Ministry of Works who may be unfortunate enough to occupy this position in which I am now, fair warning that only the best will be acceptable to you. We have had an interesting debate in which four noble Lords have taken part. The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, said that he is in favour of Barry's extension, but he does not want it done now. Well, so far so good. He also said that no building should be put up in Abingdon Street until the House had seen the plans and elevation. If I might put it in my own way, one of the things he said was that he was particularly keen that there should be no skyscrapers in Abingdon Street. The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, who has now left the House, intervened to say that he was not in favour of Barry's extension. My noble friend, Lord Mottistone, made some useful Suggestions, to which I am sure he will not expect me to reply until I have had an opportunity of consultation with arehitects of equal eminence to himself. The noble Lord, Lord Rea was anxious that historical mistakes should not be repeated. In view of the general discussion, it seems that if I were to put the point of view of the Ministry of Works in regard to the issue which has been raised in so interesting a fashion this afternoon, perhaps that would be the best reply I could make to noble Lords who have spoken and to the House in general.
We are obliged to the noble Earl. Lord Stanhope, for raising a matter which must always be of interest to both Houses of Parliament: how best to provide the necessary accommodation for Peers and for Members of Parliament so as to enable the machinery of Parliament to function. I find that there is a tendency outside to think that when once a Chamber for each House has been provided, the difficulty has been overcome and that nothing else is required. This, of course, is a complete fallacy, and the ancillary accommodation required, such as committee rooms, libraries, refresh-
248
ment rooms, et cetera, are just as important as the actual Chambers. The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, has spoken much too modestly of the Committee over which he presided in 1945. That Committee made a number of valuable suggestions about accommodation in the Palace of Westminster, and I am only sorry—as I am sure he is—that the process of complying with a number of their recommendations is proving a rather long-drawn-out one. But that was foreseen by the noble Earl's Committee at the time. Of all those recommendations, I think posterity will be most grateful to the noble Earl and his Committee for the recommendation which led to the acquisition of the Abingdon Street site.
May I remind your Lordships of the circumstances prevailing at that time? This site, which consisted of a number of houses owned by various interests, was about to be sold to the National Association of Local Government Officers, who intended to erect a block of office buildings upon it. To comply with the provisions of the London County Council Improvements Act, it was necessary for the promoters to approach the Commissioners of Works for their consent to the elevation of the proposed building. The Office of Works, as it then was, consulted the Royal Fine Art Commission and exhibited drawings of the elevation in the House of Commons Tea Room. As no objections were raised, the plans were approved. In 1945, at the time of the noble Earl's Committee, the scheme of development was about to take effect. During the war the houses on the site had been severely damaged; they were due to be demolished prior to development and there was obviously little time to be lost if the site was to be preserved for Parliament. The Ministry of Works brought this state of affairs before the notice of the noble Earl's Committee and suggested that the site should be acquired for a building scheme in order to supplement the deficiencies of accommodation in the Houses of Parliament. It would, I think, have been a real disaster if the opportunity had been lost. Apart from land in Bridge Street, which would be difficult and expensive to acquire owing to interference with the trading interests concerned, the Abingdon Street site is the only land available for disposal in the vicinity of Parliament.

249
It is much to the credit of the noble Lord and his Committee that they saw the need for speed and advised the acquisition of the site before it was too late. Up to the present I have given credit to the noble Lord for this act of foresight. Your Lordships will, perhaps, remember Pope's line about those who:
"Do good by stealth, and blush to find it Fame."
I think it was Charles Lamb who improved on this when he said:
"The greatest pleasure I know is to do a good action by stealth and to have it found out by accident."
The noble Lord, in his modesty, is going one better and now would have us believe that it was by accident that he did any good at all. What the noble Lord meant, I think, when he suggested buying the Abingdon Street site, was that we should revive Sir Charles Barry's scheme for completing the Palace of Westminster by a new building, extending it to St. Stephen's Porch outside Westminster Hall and New Palace Yard, eventually joining up with the Clock Tower.
May I examine exactly what the Committee did say? I quote from paragraph 19 of the Report:
"The needs of legislators in a modern democratic assembly are likely to grow, rather than to diminish, and these can only be met by new building, or by taking in and converting other houses outside the present precincts…. The Committee recommend that, pending a decision being arrived at as to how this increased accommodation shall be found, premises in Abingdon Street and Bridge Street be acquired, so that Parliament will be in a position to make such use of them hereafter as may be desired. A further proposal is to complete the plans for the Palace of Westminster as prepared by Sir Charles Barry by a building in the same arehitectural style as the rest of the Palace extending from St. Stephen's Porch along the edge of the roadway outside Westminster Hall and New Palace Yard to the corner opposite Whitehall and thence eastwards to join up with the Clock Tower…."
According to the noble Earl, as he has told us this afternoon, a sentence was left out of the Report, which said:
"The Committee recommend that this proposal"—
that is, Sir Charles Barry's extension—
"should be studied as a long-term project."
Apparently, it is this long-term scheme which is to get us out of our accommodation difficulties. May I ask why, then, did the Committee recommend the acquisition of the Abingdon Street site?
250
During the war, most of the houses had been so severely damaged by bombs as to make the ruins suitable only for demolition. Surely, the only possible justification for acquiring that site was to clear the ruins and erect a new building. That has been the development suggested to the Committee by the Ministry, and that was the project put to the House of Commons in 1946. The actual wording in the Houses of Parliament Vote, Class VII, was:
"Purchase of site in Abingdon Street for additional building."
It was to acquire this land for the purpose of a building scheme there that the House of Commons voted the sum of £260,000: it was certainly not for a scheme for protecting the amenities of the Abbey or those of the Dean and Chapter.
Let me go back to the Barry scheme. In actual fact, it was studied by the Ministry at the time the Committee raised the matter, and the Ministry came to the conclusion—and I hope I shall be able to persuade your Lordships to come to it also—that it really is not a practicable scheme at the present time. If you look at a drawing showing the effect of building Sir Charles Barry's extension on the present layout of New Palace Yard and the roadway outside, you will find that some of the results would be something like the following. First, the extension would reduce the amount of parking space in New Palace Yard by 36 per cent. Noble Lords who have the advantage of parking in Old Palace Yard may not appreciate that the parking space in New Palace Yard is already inadequate for the needs of the House of Commons; and at times cars have actually to be parked on the pavement, and seriously interfere with foot traffic, so great is the shortage; and the suggestion has been made that cars of Members of the House of Commons should be allowed to be parked in Old Palace Yard.
Secondly, the extension would project thirty-three feet from the present boundary into St. Margaret's Street, reducing the width of the roadway by eighteen feet. Thirdly, it would, I suggest, be a serious blunder to enclose New Palace Yard by a high building. The effect would be, as the noble Lord, Lord Mersey, said, completely to blanket out Westminster Hall and to restrict the view from Parliament Square of the Clock Tower. There is

251
yet another danger: members of the public who might want to see the time by Big Ben would have to go out into the middle of the road to see it. The familiar view into New Palace Yard would also go, and the sunken lawn with the statue of Cromwell would disappear. Incidentally, the Grand Committee Room and other accommodation on the West side of Westminster Hall would be destroyed. The plan provided for a single entrance archway for all traffic going into and coming out of New Palace Yard instead of the present pair of double gates.
May I return to the proposal regarding the Abingdon Street site? I must make it clear that this site is needed to meet the serious deficiencies, both for Lords and Commons, in the accommodation of the Palace of Westminster. The noble Earl has asked me what sort of accommodation we propose to provide there. The project has still to be worked out in detail, but, roughly, the Ministry of Works will provide accommodation which will either help to meet the deficiencies pointed out by the noble Lord's Committee or, by rearrangement, will free rooms in the Palace of Westminster required for other purposes. It is only in this way, I suggest, that we shall be able to provide essential accommodation in the vicinity of the two Chambers for those whose work necessitates their being there. I have been asked what sort of building, architecturally, we propose to erect on the site. I need not remind your Lordships, and the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, in particular, that the Ministry of Works are still working on the excellent tradition which he followed when he was in charge of the Ministry; and they are fully aware of the need for protecting the amenities of this important site. We shall take every step possible to do so, both by consulting the Royal Fine Art Commission, and by exhibiting our plans in both Houses of Parliament, so that there can be adequate discussion of them before the building commences.
We must, of course, remember that the site has cost £260,000 and that it was specially acquired for a building scheme. If noble Lords will forgive my saying so, I cannot help thinking that there has been some exaggeration in this talk of a threat to the Abbey. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Rea, to go with me and see
252
what it is that is threatened. If a new building is erected on the Abingdon Street site, the passer-by in Abingdon Street will no longer be able to see the wall which surrounds the Chapter's garden. He will no longer be able to see the public lavatory which adorns that wall. He will no longer see the back of the Victorian building which, I believe, houses the Industrial Court. On the other hand, the scheme of development will provide for the demolition of No. 5 Palace Yard, which is on the site wanted to complete the set-up of the King George V Memorial Scheme.
In reply to the reference to the Jewel Tower. I may say that it is our intention to open up the approaches to the Jewel Tower, that interesting survival of the Old Palace of Westminster, to which, if my history is correct, Charles I resorted after his unsuccessful attempt on the five Members. The completion of the Poets' Corner clearance scheme by the removal of No. 5 Old Palace Yard, as approved by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament as long ago as 1939, will add to the amenities of the Abbey surroundings, and I am confident that it should be possible to erect a building on the site adjoining Abingdon Street which, whilst enabling us to overcome the deficiencies of accommodation in the Palace of Westminster, will not impair the amenities of this historic neighbourhood. In the light of what I have endeavoured to convey to your Lordships, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, will now be sufficiently satisfied to withdraw his Motion.
5.41 p.m.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord opposite for what he has said. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain shortly one or two things on which I think the noble Lord is not quite clear. He asked us why the Committee suggested acquiring the Abingdon Street site. I have tried to explain that it was in order to provide a flat for the Lord Chancellor and, perhaps, for one or two other officers of both Houses of Parliament. In fact, the Lord Chancellor is now accommodated in the Palace of Westminster, but the Yeoman-Usher is not. Where he lives I do not know it may be miles away. So, at any rate, there is something that might be done there. One thing that was clear to

253
every member of the Committee was this: that all Members of another place who came before us suggested that the House of Lords should have our Committee rooms on the other side of Abingdon Street, so that the House of Commons could take over our Committee rooms just outside this Chamber. Similarly, every member of the House of Lords suggested that Members of another place should find their accommodation for interviewing their constituents, and so on, somewhere outside the Palace, either in Bridge Street or elsewhere.
It was made clear to every member of the Committee that no member of either House of Parliament would be expected to cross the street and go very far from the Chamber. Otherwise, if an unexpected Division took place, it would mean that members would be unable to get back in time. Therefore, the only real way by which accommodation can be found for Members of Parliament so that they can see their constituents, consult people, have Committee rooms and so on, is by adopting something in the nature of Sir Charles Barry's scheme. The noble Lord said that the scheme would mean that the buildings would project into the roadway. I am not quite sure whether he is right. I have not a scale to measure the plans. He may be right and I may be wrong. He may not have observed that the present footpath would become a covered footway colonnaded. Those of your Lordships who went out yesterday afternoon, and saw the public waiting in the rain to get into the Houses of Parliament, will realise the advantage of having a covered footway.
It was the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, who objected to hiding the Great Hall of Westminster. I think, if noble Lords will go and look at it, they will agree with me that that would be an advantage, and not otherwise. At some period the roadway has been raised by something like twelve or fifteen feet, with the result that one looks down on the Great Hall of Westminster, instead of looking up. Unfortunately, the whole of the proportions of the Hall have been destroyed and, what is more, all sorts of excrescences have been built between the buttresses, completely ruining the outside of the Great Hall. I am strongly in
254
favour of everybody being given a chance of seeing the inside of the Great Hall: it is magnificent. But in my view the outside has been ruined. Why Lord Morrison thinks that people would have to go out into the middle of Parliament Square to see Big Ben, I do not know. I can assure him—as he will see if he will look at the plans again—that Sir Charles Barry's scheme is for buildings that are low, and Big Ben will be a long way above them. Therefore, people will not have to go out into the roadway to see the clock. I will say nothing further now, except to thank the noble Lord for agreeing that both Houses of Parliament should see the future scheme. I hope that he now agrees that the knowledge and experience of this House are infinitely superior to those shown in another place. And that is why the scheme which was passed by another place has been criticised, and properly criticised, here to-day. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
5.46 p.m.
LORD AREHIBALD: My Lords, we are expecting a Message from another place concerning the Leasehold Properties (Temporary Provisions) Bill. I suggest that, as we have concluded the business on the Order Paper, we adjourn during pleasure. We may receive the Message by 6.45. If it comes earlier, I will let noble Lords know.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

LEASEHOLD PROPERTIES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
8.1 p.m.
Returned from the Commons, with certain of the Amendments agreed to; one other disagreed to, but an Amendment made in lieu thereof; and certain others disagreed to, with a Reason for such disagreement.
House adjourned at two minutes past eight o'clock.