Sitting of 3 May 1951

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    AIRDRIE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Considered; To be read the Third time To-morrow.
    UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH (ROYAL (DICK) VETERINARY COLLEGE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act. 1936, relating to University of Edinburgh (Royal (Dick) Veterinary College)," presented by Mr. McNeil; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

    Personal Case
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Health if he has investigated the case, particulars of which were sent to him on 12th April, in which a resident of Burn-ham-on-Crouch, who had already been ill for a considerable time, was advised by a specialist that she would have to wait at least seven months more for a bed in Southend Hospital, but that he could perform the necessary operation privately for a fee of 25 guineas, with other charges totalling 16½ guineas; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Marquand): I have written to my hon. Friend about this case, on which the information I have differs from his.
    Mr. Driberg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his letter, but does he recall that it does not deal with the essential point, which is how soon will this
    1392
    lady, who is suffering and in need of an operation, be admitted to hospital? Is it not quite wrong that she should be given to understand that she can get an operation done quicker if she pays all this money?
    Mr. Marquand: I shall be happy to discuss that aspect of the case with my hon. Friend.

    Foreigners (Treatment)
    Mr. Woodasked the Minister of Health what was the cost, to the latest convenient date, of benefits enjoyed by foreigners under the National Health Service; and what is the estimated cost of such benefits during the next six months.
    Mr. Marquand: Separate figures for this are not available.

    Tuberculosis Beds, Orpington and Dartford
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Health the number of beds available for persons suffering from tuberculosis in Orpington and Dartford areas at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Marquand: There are at present 100 such beds in the Orpington area and 87 in the Dartford area.
    Sir W. Smithers: Will the Minister do his best to provide beds for all those who are certified to be suffering from tuberculosis?
    Mr. Marquand: I think the number already provided is quite significant. The Regional Hospital Board concerned maintain central waiting lists, so that patients in these areas who are suffering from tuberculosis may be admitted wherever possible to hospitals elsewhere in the same region.
    Sir W. Smithers: There should be no waiting lists at all.

    Hearing Aids
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Health how long is the waiting period between the date of application for, and the date of delivery of, hearing aids under the National Health Service in the case of patients attending the York County Hospital.
    Mr. Marquand: The period varies from two months to about two years according to priority.
    Colonel Ropner: Is there any likelihood of the Minister being able to reduce this period in the near future?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. I gave some encouraging figures about the increased output of hearing aids last week, I think, and as the output increases the waiting period must diminish.
    Mr. Turton: Is not this area in a worse condition than other areas as regards both the number requiring hearing aids, and the time they have to wait?
    Mr. Marquand: I do not think it is very different. As I said last week, I have already reviewed the allocations to different areas so that the waiting period can be approximately even, throughout the country.
    Mr. Henry Hopkinsonasked the Minister of Health why the applicants on the waiting list for hearing aid instruments at the hearing aid clinic in Taunton, amounting to about 500, are obliged to wait two years for delivery of these instruments, whereas applicants in the Oxford area only have to wait six months.
    Mr. Marquand: Many more patients have applied for aids at Bristol, the centre which serves Taunton, than at Oxford. Allocations of aids to the centres have recently been adjusted and take account of this factor.
    Mr. Hopkinsonasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there are only two audiometricians who fit and adjust hearing aids at the regional depot at Bristol, which supplies most of the South-West Hospital Region; that in addition to fitting new instruments these two men are expected to do all the repair work for the region; and whether, in view of the serious delay in the issue of new instruments which this is causing additional audiometricians can be appointed.
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir, but I do not accept the statement in the last part of the Question. The hospital authorities concerned have concluded that the appointment of an additional technician is not at present necessary.
    Mr. Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that there has been no shortage of instruments at Bristol, and that the trouble there has been due to the fact that there are no training facilities for additional audiometricians? Will the Minister not reconsider this matter?
    Mr. Marquand: As I think I explained last week, I have recently slightly increased the number of aids allocated to Bristol, and I am assured by the regional board, whose opinion I must accept, that three technicians will not be required unless a very material increase in supplies can be effected.
    Mr. Paton: Who and what are "audiometricians"? Are they merely hearing aid fitters?
    Mr. Douglas Marshall: The Minister has said that he has recently increased the number of aids allocated to Bristol. In an answer he gave the other day he said that he had increased the number allocated to the West of England. Did he include, in that reply, Plymouth as well as Bristol?
    Mr. Marquand: I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. Hopkinsonasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that many simple cases of deafness do not require to be fitted for a hearing-aid instrument by a qualified audiometrician, arrangements can be made for a stock of hearing aids to be kept at the Hearing-Aid Clinic in Taunton, so that patients can normally be fitted on the spot.
    Mr. Marquand: No, Sir. It is essential that patients be fitted with their aids and instructed how to use them by trained staff.
    Mr. Hopkinson: Is the Minister aware that this is not the view of a number of qualified medical practitioners in Taunton, and will he please re-examine this question in view of the long waiting list for hearing aids there?
    Mr. Marquand: My advice is that it would be wasteful of time and talent to make any change in the present arrangements.

    Health Centre, Sheffield
    Mr. Somerville Hastingsasked the Minister of Health why the comprehensive health centre which the Sheffield

    1395
    Health Committee decided to inaugurate in 1948 by conversion of the Frith Park maternity and child welfare centre is not yet in operation; and what is holding up the anticipated progress.
    Mr. Marquand: I understand that the doctors concerned are now unwilling to co-operate.
    Mr. Hastings: Can my right hon. Friend use his good offices with these difficult doctors, so that at any rate we may have one health centre in operation as an experiment before long?
    Mr. Marquand: Nothing would please me better than that the doctors should co-operate, because approval for the centre was given quite a long time ago. If my hon. Friend has any suggestions about action which I might take, I should be very glad if he will give them to me.
    Mr. Hastings: Would my right hon. Friend consider calling a meeting of the difficult doctors? It is not all the doctors in the neighbourhood who are involved. Could he not arrange for a meeting of such doctors and put the case to them?
    Mr. Marquand: I would be very glad to look into that possibility.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Is it not a little odd that everybody should be out of step in this matter except the Minister?

    Hospital Committees
    Lieut.-Commander R. H. Thompsonasked the Minister of Health how many persons have resigned from, or for other reasons ceased to serve on, hospital group management committees and on hospital house committees respectively, in the United Kingdom during the year 1950.
    Mr. Marquand: Seven hundred and fifty-one members of hospital management committees in England and Wales. The number for house committees is not available. Comparable figures in Scotland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Lieut.-Commander Thompson: Does the Minister consider that this ratio of loss of committee members is excessive in the circumstances?
    Mr. Marquand: No, Sir.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Do these figures include the members of group management committees removed by the Southwest Metropolitan Regional Board in its attempt to assert its will on its subordinate management committees?
    Mr. Marquand: The regional boards appoint those committees.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That means "yes."
    Lieut.-Commander Thompsonasked the Minister of Health what is the number of persons serving on hospital group management committees and on hospital house committees in the United Kingdom at the last convenient date.
    Mr. Marquand: The number of seats on hospital management committees in England and Wales filled on 31st March, 1951, was 6,370. The actual number of serving members was somewhat less, as many were members of more than one committee. The figures for house committees are not available. Comparable figures for Scotland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: In view of these figures, is not the number of resignations very high?
    Mr. Marquand: The members are appointed normally for three years; 751 out of 6,370 is not a high number.
    Dr. Hill: Does the figure for the resignations include those whose period of office came automatically to an end after three years?
    Mr. Marquand: The previous Question that I was asked was how many resigned from, or for other reasons ceased to serve on, hospital group management committees and hospital house committees.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Could my right hon. Friend find some means of persuading hon. Members opposite that in spite of recent evidence to the House to the contrary, resignations are not always justified?
    Mr. Marquand: There is no intention—and it is not desirable—of perpetuating membership for ever among the same people. There must be some changes from time to time.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Could the Minister perhaps enjoin that view on his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). His resignation would be a great help.
    Lieut.-Commander Thompsonasked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the summary removal of Mr. Melbourne Davis from the Croydon Hospital Management Committee, and from the acting-chairmanship of the Mayday Hospital House Committee.
    Mr. Marquand: There was no summary removal. The member served his full term of office.
    Lieut.-Commander Thompson: Is the Minister aware that such is not the impression? Is he further aware that this gentleman, after 30 years devoted service to hospitals, ought not to be removed in this summary manner, in view of the great public disquiet which has been aroused about the method and manner of his removal?
    Mr. Marquand: If a wrong impression prevails, I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will do his best to correct it.

    Hospital Beds
    Mr. Alportasked the Minister of Health how many additional hospital beds he anticipates will be opened during the financial year 1951–52.
    Mr. Marquand: I am unable to give any useful estimate at this stage.
    Mr. Alport: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise what a very urgent matter this is, and how important it is that some idea should be given to those who were concerned in the provision of additional hospital accommodation as to how far progress is likely to be made during the coming year?
    Mr. Marquand: I do realise how urgent it is, and I am doing all I can about it, but that is another matter from being able to estimate how far success can be achieved during a period of a year when so much depends upon the availability of nursing staff.
    Mr. Hastings: Does not the opening of more beds depend mainly on the question of domestic and nursing staff?
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: If the Minister has not been able to estimate how many beds will be opened, what financial allocation has he made in the Estimates for this purpose?
    Mr. Marquand: I have already informed the House that we are allowing £15 million more this year than last year for the hospital service.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Does the right hon. Gentleman estimate that he will be able to use this extra money?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Alportasked the Minister of Health how many persons are on the waiting lists of hospitals in England and Wales; and what is the average period of waiting.
    Mr. Marquand: The total number on 31st December, 1950, was 553,577. I could not give waiting periods without making extensive inquiries, but in any case an average figure would have little significance.
    Mr. Alport: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this number is a matter of grave concern, and is indeed far greater than the figure which those of us who have been trying to estimate the size of the problem according to our own capacities, have reached? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that from the point of view of a locality like North-East Essex, the numbers on the waiting list have been there for about three months or more on the average? Does this not indicate to the Minister the necessity to deal with this problem urgently?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. I am fully aware of the urgency of this problem, and I am doing all I can to secure an increase in the number of nurses and to make more staff beds available. I am happy to say that the number on the waiting list is less than it was a year ago.
    Mr. Paton: Has my right hon. Friend any figures to show how this compares with the waiting list before the National Health Service was established? Can he say how many new beds for general hospital cases have been established since the service was instituted?
    Mr. Marquand: I gave the latter figure last week. I cannot with certainty state it from memory, but I think it was about 18,000 since the National Health Service started. As I say, I speak from memory, and I am subject to correction. It is not

    1399
    possible to say what the position was before the National Health Service started since statistics are not available.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Could not the Minister investigate that point a little further? It is of no use to give the figure since the Health Service started, which was, of course, after the end of the war. We should be interested to have the pre-war figures to compare with them. That is what the House wants to know.
    Mr. Marquand: That would be very interesting but, I suggest, slightly academic.

    Hospital Service Reserve
    Mr. Messerasked the Minister of Health what is the total number of recruits enrolled in the National Hospital Service Reserve; and whether he is satisfied with the progress made.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): The number of recruits is now 14,675. Since in the event of war the hospital and first-aid services would need about 80,000 additional nurses, I cannot regard the present rate of progress as satisfactory.
    Mr. Messer: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what action his Department is taking to deal with what is an admittedly serious situation?
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes, Sir. The two voluntary organisations, the Red Cross and the St. John Ambulance Brigade, who have already done so much in this field, have undertaken a further special appeal to their members to join the National Hospital Service Reserve. We are undertaking a special publicity campaign this autumn together with some realistic practices in the field, which, I hope, will help to bring the numbers much above their present level.
    Mr. Messer: But what inducement is being offered? It is not enough just to have publicity. These people must be offered some status if they are to be attracted.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: That has already been set out very carefully in the leaflets that have been published. I think that both pay and status have been reasonably well looked after.

    Specialist Fees
    Mr. Vosperasked the Minister of Health what steps have been taken to ensure that hospital patients contracting for pay-bed accommodation are advised in advance of the anticipated amount of specialist fees.
    Mr. Marquand: These fees are arranged privately between patients and specialists, subject to maxima specified in regulations. Hospital authorities have been asked to draw attention to the maxima when private patients sign the undertaking to pay the hospital charges.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Would it not be better to abolish this pay-bed system altogether?
    Mr. Marquand: That would require legislation.

  RIVER THAMES (POLLUTION)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the pollution of the River Thames; and whether, in view of the opening of the bathing season, he has any statement to make as to dangers to health involved in bathing in this river.
  Mr. Marquand: I am advised that above Teddington the risks to bathers are not great. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning that to purify the Thames completely would cost more money, materials and labour than we can afford at present.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to those responsible, for example, for youth organisations, that it is reasonable to allow young people to bathe in the river this year?
  Mr. Marquand: I gave a written answer on this question to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on 1st May and I would ask the hon. Member to look at that answer.
  Mr. Lionel Heald: In view of the very large number of people who bathe in the Thames, at places like Runnymede, for example, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the expression he has used, that the danger is "not great," might be put a little more specifically?
  Mr. Marquand: It is impossible to measure accurately the risk to health. One can only give a general opinion based on that of my medical advisers.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Cardiff
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Minister of Labour the number of vacancies registered at the Cardiff employment exchange, and the number of these which are thought suitable for persons over 65 years of age.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Robens): Last week at the employment exchange at Cardiff there were 1,557 outstanding vacancies of which it is thought that about 125 might be suitable for persons over 65 years of age.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that his first reply to a Question as Minister of Labour is a little encouraging, but only a little encouraging? Can he hold out any hope that the number of vacancies for these people is likely to be increased in view of Government policy?
    Mr. Robens: I shall probably be more encouraging as I get more experience.
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons over 65 years of age for whom employment is expected to be found in Cardiff during the next year.
    Mr. Robens: I do not know.
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women, respectively, aged between 65 years of age and 70 years of age, who have been found employment by the Cardiff employment exchange offices during the past year.
    Mr. Robens: Information of this nature is not specially recorded and to do so or to extract the details from existing documents would involve an undue expenditure of time which would not be justified.

    Unemployment (Statistics)
    Mr. Alportasked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed were registered at the end of January, February, March and April, 1951; and whether any abnormal increases in unemployment have taken place in particular industries in April, 1951.
    Mr. Robens: As the answer contains a table of figures, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The total numbers unemployed in Great Britain at the count dates in the months January-April, 1951, were as follow:

    ——

    Males

    Females

    Total

    15th January

    …

    230,864

    102,707

    333,571

    12th February

    …

    204,168

    97,784

    301,952

    12th March

    …

    182,882

    91,979

    274,861

    16th April

    …

    165,154

    88,016

    253,170

    The tabulation of the unemployment figures for April has not yet been completed, but I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the figures become available.

    Exchange, Wirksworth
    Mr. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Labour what staff is employed at the employment exchange at Wirksworth, Derbyshire; and what is the daily average of cases dealt with.
    Mr. Robens: The staff is three and the average number of cases dealt with each day is seven. There has been a full time office at Wirksworth since 1928 at least. Pre-war, the live register of unemployed persons was over 300. Urgent consideration is being given to the question of the type of facilities to be provided in future for small towns such as Wirksworth, where the volume of work is so small.
    Mr. Wakefield: Is the Minister satisfied that the number of staff employed in this exchange is not excessive in relation to the work?
    Mr. Robens: I am anxious that a proper service should be given at the employment exchanges. At the same time, we do not want over-staffing.

    Advisory Council (Report)
    Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Labour what advice he has received from the Advisory Council on the relationship between employment in the Services and civilian life; and what progress has been made in improving the employment prospects of ex-Regular members of His Majesty's Forces on their return to civilian life.
    Mr. Robens: An account of their first year's work and of the progress made is given in the Council's recent Report to

    1403
    my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence and myself. This Report shows that more opportunities have been made available in the public services, in commerce and in industry for men and women leaving the Services and that they will have greater facilities to qualify for them. It shows that all concerned are interested in solving this problem. The Report was published in the February issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette and is available in the Library.

    Stoppage, Salford Docks
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the strike at Salford Docks.
    Mr. Roberts: This stoppage arises out of the refusal of two men on 23rd April to work overtime on a certain ship being discharged at Salford Docks because of the fact that overtime was not started at the time discharging commenced. They were suspended for three days and although the Dock Labour Scheme gives them a statutory right of appeal, the men declined to exercise that right and trouble developed so that on 26th April, all the men ceased work demanding the reinstatement of the two men and payment to them for their period of suspension.
    There was at one time a custom at these docks under which overtime was not worked on any ship unless it had been declared necessary when discharging started. On 5th April, the Port Joint Negotiating Committee agreed that overtime should be worked whenever necessary. This is fully in accordance with the provisions of the Dock Labour Scheme.
    I am sure the House will agree that there is often a reluctance to give up a practice to which men are accustomed and it may be that some of the men feel strongly about it. However that may be, the men should recognise that an agreement negotiated through the proper channels must be observed. I hope, therefore, that the men will see the wisdom of getting back to work at once in accordance with the union's advice and allow any matters arising to be properly and fairly considered.
    Mr. Hardy: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him if he can say whether, when the negotiations
    1404
    commence, there will be a prospect of these two men being reinstated to their former jobs?
    Mr. Roberts: I should not like to prejudice any negotiations, and at this stage I express the hope that the advice I give to the dockers, through the medium of this answer, to go back and let the machinery work, will be accepted by them.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is the first occasion upon which these circumstances have arisen since 5th April when the agreement was arrived at, and, if so, is this a test case?
    Mr. Roberts: This is perhaps the first occasion on which this matter has been raised.
    Mrs. Braddock: Can the Minister say what was done to inform the men that a new agreement had been reached? Is he certain that they had the necessary information?
    Mr. Robens: That would be a matter for the appropriate trade union. I am not aware what steps they took to advise their members about the new agreement which had been reached.
    Colonel Ropner: Is the Minister aware of the appalling delay in the discharging of ships in many of our ports and harbours?
    Mr. Robens: That is another question.

  NATIONAL SERVICE (RESERVISTS)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Labour at what age Class Z and other reservists are free to accept liabilities for other forms of service in time of war.
  Mr. Robens: At the age of 40, except for Regular reservists. It must, however, be understood that the Service Departments retain the right to recall in an emergency those Class Z and equivalent reservists over this age whom they might need. In addition, Class Z and equivalent reservists between 30 and 40 may, with certain exceptions, accept liabilities for service in the more strenuous branches of the Civil Defence services.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: How then does the Z reservist over 40 years of age know whether he is free to enrol in Civil Defence, for example, or whether the Service Departments will require his services?
  Mr. Robens: We have issued a document on that matter which is freely available. I think the hon. Member will find the information contained therein.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Having seen that document, might I ask the Minister whether it specifies the precise categories of people who will or will not be free to join Civil Defence at the age of 40?
  Mr. Robens: What it does define is the categories who are not eligible.
  Mr. Harmar Nicholls: To encourage recruitment for Civil Defence, would the Minister be prepared to undertake to guarantee that members of Civil Defence services over the age of 40 would not be called up in the first 12 months of any emergency?
  Mr. Robens: No, I could not possibly do that.

  RETAIL PRICE INDEX
  Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Labour how many of the offices of his Department, used for the collection of food prices, during the last three months collected the prices per pound actually being charged in their locality for each of the following items required for the compilation of the interim index of retail prices; and how many offices made a nil return: beef, home-killed, 1st quality, sirloin, without bone, topside, silverside

  NUMBER OF OFFICES OF THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND NATIONAL SERVICE WHICH COLLECTED PRICES PER POUND FOR THE UNDER-MENTIONED ARTICLES, OR WHICH MADE A NIL RETURN, DURING THE THREE MONTHS, JANUARY TO MARCH, 1951.

  Article

  Number of offices which collected prices

  Number of offices making nil returns

  Mid-January, 1951

  Mid-February, 1951

  Mid-March, 9151

  Mid-January 1951

  Mid-February, 1951

  Mid-March, 1951

  Beef, home-killed, 1st quality: Sirloin (without bone), topside, silverside, or thick flank, without bone

  188

  188

  189

  12

  12

  11

  The corresponding cut in Scotland

  192

  190

  191

  8

  10

  9

  Mutton, home-killed, 1st quality: Leg, except chop, with bone

  184

  178

  180

  16

  22

  20

  Lamb, home-killed, 1st quality: Loin, except chop

  182

  177

  177

  18

  23

  23

  Shoulder, with bone

  181

  176

  179

  19

  24

  21

  Mutton, imported, leg, except chop, with bone

  180

  164

  164

  20

  36

  36

  Lamb, imported, loin, except chop

  187

  182

  183

  13

  18

  17

  Pork, home-killed, leg, foot off, except leg chops

  99

  109

  138

  101

  91

  62

  Pork sausages

  149

  139

  148

  51

  61

  52

  Ox liver

  140

  139

  136

  60

  61

  64

  or thick flank; mutton, home-killed, 1st quality, leg, except chop, with bone; lamb, home-killed, 1st quality, loin, except chop, shoulder, with bone; mutton, imported, leg, except chop, with bone; lamb, imported, loin, except chop; pork, home-killed, leg, foot off, except leg chops; pork sausages; ox liver.
  Mr. Robens: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Major Lloyd: While I anticipated at least part of that reply, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, in view of the fact that so few of these commodities are available, and as the prices are presumably controlled and therefore known in the Minister's Department, it is necessary to employ a large number of officials to snoop around trying to find out prices which he knows already?
  Mr. Robens: If the articles are not available a nil return reaches us, which gives us additional information.
  Major Lloyd: How many of the Minister's officials reported that they had seen or knew the price of a sirloin of beef?
  Mr. Robens: When the hon. and gallant Member sees the reply he will have all these figures.
  Following is the information:

  EDUCATION

    Durham County Council (Teachers)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Education if he will make a statement as to the latest developments in the dispute between himself and the Durham County Council on its closed shop policy.
    Miss Irene Wardasked the Minister of Education whether he will make a statement on his meeting with representatives of the Durham County Council on the closed shop policy.
    Mr. Hollisasked the Minister of Education what was the result of his interview with officials of the Durham educational authority concerning the appointment of teachers in that county.
    The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): The Durham local education authority have now given me the assurance for which I asked in my letter of 3rd April. I have also seen a deputation from the authority and discussed the resulting position with them.
    Sir W. Smithers: Has the attention of the Minister been called to the activities of Councillor Peart over this closed shop business, and the subversive activities of this gentleman when he was a teacher? Is he aware that he recently appeared before the professional conduct committee of the National Union of Teachers for conduct detrimental, or injurious, to the interests of the profession? What action does the Minister propose to take?
    Mr. Dodds: The hon. Gentleman is a wicked Christian.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I have had brought to my notice quite a lot of things about this dispute.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Would it not be better to put these personal attacks on one side at this time and leave the matter where it rests, so that the education of the children can proceed without interruption?
    Miss Ward: Would the right hon. Gentleman publish all the communications which have passed between his Department and the Durham County Council, as this is a matter which interests the whole of the House?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I have published all the information which I think the House requires in order to form a decision.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the letters, or put them in the Library, as he did the first letters between his Department and the Durham County Council? Will he put copies of the other letters with them so that we may really know what has been said?
    Mr. Tomlinson: There have only been three letters, and the answer which indicated what the form of the former letter was appeared in HANSARD.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the National Union of Teachers are grateful to him for the commendable action he took and that they are especially anxious now for the restoration of amicable relations with the Durham County Council?
    Mr. Hollis: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give the House any further details of last Tuesday's interview? Could he say whether any questions were left outstanding for further negotiation, or was everything settled entirely at that interview?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am anxious, as I think is everybody who has the interests of the children at heart, to bring about the re-establishment of good relations. The only reason I had for meeting them was to seek that re-establishment.
    Mr. Hollis: Did the right hon. Gentleman get it?
    Mr. Tomlinson: We are on the way.
    Mr. James Hudson: Will my right hon. Friend provide, for the purposes of the Opposition, the papers and letters that have passed with reference to teachers in Middlesex?

    Children (Physical Training)
    Mr. William Teelingasked the Minister of Education whether he is aware that physical training carried out in schools by children in bare feet encourages the spread of plantar warts; and what steps he is taking to prevent this.
    Mr. Tomlinson: In his Report of 1946 and 1947, which was published in 1949,

    1409
    the Chief Medical Officer of my Department discussed this condition and stated that the way in which it is spread remained obscure. Advice on preventive measures was given in the Report for 1937 and there is nothing at present to add to it.
    Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there have been a considerable number of complaints about this matter in various schools? If he or his medical advisers cannot make up their minds, would it at least be possible for the parents to have the right to say whether their children should wear shoes or not?
    Mr. Tomlinson: In this case, I understand that the medical officer concerned has, at any rate for a temporary period, discontinued this form of exercise.
    Mr. Teeling: Could that be made national?
    Mr. Tomlinson: No. I do not think that it needs to be made national.
    Major Lloyd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, from his own knowledge, whether the former President of the Board of Trade suffers from this unfortunate trouble?

    Iron Fencing, Brighton
    Mr. Teelingasked the Minister of Education what decision he has reached concerning the granting of a licence to enclose the Patchdean playing fields, Patcham, Brighton, with iron fencing; and whether he is now allowing, in view of the re-armament needs, iron railings to be replaced throughout the country.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The local education authority have not approached me about this proposal. My general views on the type of fencing which should normally be used in present circumstances are contained in Administrative Memorandum No. 395, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Question was first put down to the Minister of Supply, when it really made sense; that it was then passed on to the Minister of Works, who seemed sufficiently interested to get his P.P.S. to ask me to postpone it for three days, and that it was then passed to the Minister of Education? Does he realise
    1410
    that the residents are becoming rather fed up at being constantly messed about in this matter?
    Mr. Tomlinson: If the hon. Member will read the answer and the Administrative Memorandum he will find that at last it does make sense.

    School Camp, Itchingfield
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Education why the Cooperfield School Camp, Itchingfield, Sussex, is to be closed; whether this can be reconsidered; and, if necessary, whether the school could be made available for children from any educational authority in order to avoid its closure.
    Mr. Tomlinson: This is one of four camps which the Essex authority have been leasing from the National Camps Corporation. I understand that the authority have taken this decision because the demand to attend the camp has not been sufficient to justify the expense, particularly in the winter months. I am anxious that the valuable facilities which all the National Camps afford should be used to the full, particularly by those children most in need of an open-air life in the country, and I hope that as a result of approaches now being made to certain local education authorities by the National Camps Corporation, with my support, this and other camps will continue in use, possibly by two or more authorities in conjunction.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply will give great satisfaction to many of those concerned? Does it mean that this camp will be available for children from the Essex area if the authority find some to send there?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir.

    School Dental Officers
    Squadron Leader A. E. Cooperasked the Minister of Education if he has yet received the recommendations of the Whitley Council on salaries of school dental officers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The Dental Whitley Council does not make its recommendations to me but to the employing authorities. I have, however, seen the recommendations and am glad that agreement

    1411
    has been reached on a salary scale for dentists in local authority employment which will help to remove the present difficulties of the school dental service. Local education authorities are already aware from an Administrative Memorandum issued in October, 1949, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy, that they do not need my approval to the payment of salaries which are in accordance with a nationally negotiated scale to staff employed in the school health service. I am sure that local education authorities will lose no time in implementing the recommendations in view of the importance of this service.
    Squadron Leader Cooper: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many local authorities the new recommendations are not regarded as being any contribution whatever? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman did some fundamental thinking on this vital problem?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot understand that. I should like to know of any authority which suggests that this makes no contribution. It is what they have been asking for.
    Commander Maitland: What improvement does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate in the service as a result of these recommendations?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I anticipate that it will be easier to obtain dentists, because the salaries will be far in excess of those paid in the past.
    Mr. Hastings: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the London County Council have been paying these rates for many months, or years, and still cannot get more than about half the dentists they need?
    Mr. Tomlinson: That has been part of the problem and it will remain until we get more dentists.

    Teachers' Pensions
    Mr. Hollisasked the Minister of Education whether he is aware that there is a continuing liability on school teachers to contribute towards their pensions but only an annually renewed liability by the Government to pay those pensions; and whether he will amend the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, so
    1412
    as to put the teachers' benefits on the same footing as their liabilities.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot accept the implication of the first part of the Question. Under the settlement of 1925, teachers acquired a statutory right to the payment of superannuation benefits subject to the provisions of the Act, and I see no reason to modify that settlement in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Hollis: There appears to be some misunderstanding between us. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the provisions of the Act. Does he not recollect that in the First Schedule it specifically says that teachers have no claim to pension as a right? Will he bear in mind that under Section 15 of that Act a fund is set up which really is a purely legal fiction? When the time comes for new educational legislation to be introduced will he bear in mind, among other matters, the necessity to reconsider Section 15 with a view to making it more satisfactory to the teaching profession?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I will look at that matter, but I should not like anybody in the teaching profession to get the impression that their pensions are dependent upon the whim of this House some night.
    Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that schoolmasters who are now Members of Parliament have no liability in this matter, and will he consider amending Section 15 of the 1925 Act so that schoolmasters who become Members of Parliament, bear liabilities in ratio to their future benefits?
    Mr. Tomlinson: That is another question.

    Middlesex County Council (Teachers)
    Mr. Hollisasked the Minister of Education whether he intends to take any steps under Section 68 of the Education Act, 1944, as the result of the policy adopted by the Middlesex Education Authority towards the appointment of Communist teachers.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12th April to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd).
    Mr. Hollis: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that last week the Home Secretary said that he, the Minister of Education, was considering this matter? I am not pressing him to take action. He has very limited powers under the Act, and I am doubtful whether they would apply to this case, but I am sure it is desirable that the anxiety of people should be relieved and that they should know where they stand. Has anything happened since the speech of the Home Secretary?
    Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir, he is still considering it.

  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, DUNDEE (INQUIRY)
  Mr. Woodburnasked the Prime Minister whether the request of the University Court of the University of St. Andrews for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the organisation of university education in Dundee has now been considered; and whether he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. The King has been pleased to approve the setting up of a Royal Commission to consider this problem, with the following terms of reference:
  "To inquire into the organisation of University education in Dundee and its relationship with St. Andrews University, and to recommend what changes, if any, should be made in the constitution, functions and powers of the University of St. Andrews, of University College, Dundee, or of any other body or institution concerned."
  Lord Tedder, G.C.B., has accepted an invitation to serve as chairman and the other members are:
  Lord Greenhill, O.B.E.; Sir David Lindsay Keir, M.A., LL.D.; Professor Dugald Baird, M.D., F.R.C.O.G.; Mr. David Emrys Evans; Mrs. Isabel Finlayson, M.A., Ed.B.; Professor H. W. Melville, Ph.D., D.Sc., F.R.S.; Mr. J. S. Muirhead, D.S.O., M.C., T.D., D.L.; Mr. Andrew Robertson, D.Sc., F.R.S.
  Mr. Woodburn: Is the Prime Minister aware that this announcement will give great satisfaction to the people of Scotland, who have been disturbed by the unhappy dispute existing between these two sections of a great university; and that this House would like to express to all those concerned the hope that they will co-operate with the Royal Commission with a veiw to reaching a friendly solution of this dispute?
  Captain Duncan: May I ask the Prime Minister where this Royal Commission should sit? If it is to be in Edinburgh, will he ask the Royal Commission to have some of its sessions, at any rate, in Dundee?
  The Prime Minister: I have no information about where it would sit. I think it is hardly possible that it would not visit Dundee.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will the Royal Commission be located in Edinburgh, or, at any rate, in Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: I think so.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: Since the Commission will be dealing with St. Andrews University, could it possibly visit St. Andrews?

  MALICIOUS DAMAGE CASES
  Mr. Shepherdasked the Prime Minister how many cases of sabotage, or suspected sabotage, directed against the Armed Services or Government Corporations have occurred during the past two years.
  The Prime Minister: During the last two years there have been several cases of malicious damage to the property of the Armed Services and of Government Corporations, but there is no evidence that these were the work of an organisation directed or controlled by enemies of the State.
  Mr. Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that he believes that these actions have been entirely unco-ordinated and that there is no organisation working to these ends?
  The Prime Minister: What I said was that there was no evidence to show that there was any co-ordination.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, included in these figures, there are cases covered by the normal interpretation of the word "sabotage," which means any malicious damage committed for any cause, private personal grievance or anything of that kind; and whether the figures have been analysed and show, in any cases, any political motive at all?
  The Prime Minister: I do not quite see how that bears on my reply. The word "sabotage" is used in the Question, and I have used the words "malicious damage." There were several cases of malicious damage, but I do not think that I could take it any further than that.
  Mr. S. Silverman: My right hon. Friend will have noted the form of the supplementary question from the other side, which appeared to imply that malicious damage must always be occasioned by political reasons and political motives. I am asking my right hon. Friend whether the cases to which he was referring are all cases of personal grievances and not of political motives of any kind?
  The Prime Minister: My reply was that there is no evidence to show that these are part of any connected campaign of sabotage. There are, in some cases, obviously, individual grievances, but one cannot say quite definitely. There may have been some political motive or not. I am merely saying that the evidence does not prove conclusively that there is not.
  Commander Maitland: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in how many cases there have been prosecutions?
  The Prime Minister: Not without notice.

  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (FLORAL DECORATIONS)
  Mr. Geoffrey Wilsonasked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent imported flowers have been used for the decoration of the South Bank Exhibition; and for what reason it has not been possible to confine floral decorations entirely to British horticultural products.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Stokes): Contracts for floral decorations have in all cases been placed with British firms, and the Festival Office are satisfied that growing plants and growing flowers have, in fact, been prepared in this country. It is probable, however, that the seeds and bulbs from which the flowers were grown had in some cases come from abroad. Contracts for supplies of cut flowers have also been placed with British firms and it is possible that some of these, too, may have originated abroad, because British
  1416
  flowers may not, in some cases, have been in season at the time required for exhibition purposes.
  Mr. Wilson: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that there is a glut of British flowers at the present time for which very low prices are being paid? Can he give an assurance that all the flowers used for the Exhibition are of British origin, in order to encourage the British horticultural industry?
  Mr. Stokes: I have explained what has happened. The main instruction to the Festival authorities was to make the show gay, and I hope that when hon. Members see it tomorrow they will think that it is.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Now that this great Festival is open, can the Lord Privy Seal give us an assurance that the petty sniping on the part of hon. Members opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lie down."]—that has been going on for many months past, will now cease, in view of the fact that many hon. Members opposite took the opportunity to go to the opening service this morning?
  Mr. Stokes: I cannot control sniping, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I do not mind it in the least.
  Mr. G. R. Howard: Can the Minister give as much publicity as possible to his answer, to correct a very strong impression caused by a radio announcement from the B.B.C. to the effect that flower bulbs came from Holland, instead of West Cornwall? The statement has done a great deal of harm to the flower-growing industry?
  Mr. Stokes: I think that this Question and Answer will be given the necessary publicity.

  AGRICULTURE

    Horses
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Agriculture what is the present population of horses: and how this compares with 1938.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): The number of horses on agricultural holdings in the United Kingdom at June, 1950, was 549,000 compared with 1,100,000 in June, 1938. Of these, 396,000 were used for agricultural purposes in 1950 and 748,000 in 1938.
    Mr. Dodds: Does not my right hon. Friend think that, at the present rate, in 10 years from now, the horse will be almost as scarce as the hansom cab is today? Will he do something about it?
    Mr. Williams: Perhaps my hon. Friend is not aware that, quite recently, the Ministry completed a film showing the work that can be done on a farm by a horse as an auxiliary to a tractor.

    Farm Machinery
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give detailed figures, at the latest available date, to show the extent to which mechanisation, such as tractors and combine harvesters, has increased since 1945.
    Mr. T. Williams: Agricultural machinery censuses are taken every two years and the last one was in January, 1950. There were then 332,000 tractors of all types in use on farms in Great Britain, as compared with about 203,000 in January, 1946. Particulars of the census figures for the more important types of farm machinery, including combine harvesters, are given in the published Annual Abstract of Statistics.
    Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Minister whether, since he takes credit for the increased production in this country over the last six years, he will not give some credit to increased mechanisation, which is a factor to be borne in mind?
    Mr. Williams: Most certainly, especially as it was this Government which promoted the mechanisation.

    Dogs (Sheep Worrying)
    Mr. Maudlingasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the losses suffered by farmers in Hertfordshire as a result of the worrying of sheep by dogs; and what steps he proposes to take to mitigate this nuisance.
    Mr. T. Williams: Cases of the worrying of sheep by dogs in several parts of the country have been brought to my notice recently. The whole question of sheep worrying is constantly before my Department, but I am afraid that it is not possible to formulate additions to existing arrangements that would have a material effect on the problem without bearing unduly heavily on the great majority of dog owners whose dogs do no damage.
    Mr. Maudling: In view of the fact that many farmers have been forced by this nuisance to give up keeping sheep, will the Minister consider whether any strengthening of existing legislation may not have the effect of mitigating the evil?
    Mr. Williams: I do not think it is quite so much a question of legislation as of the effective carrying out of existing legislation. I can assure the hon. Member that the county branches of the National Farmers' Union, and the N.F.U. itself, are in close contact with chief constables in all the various counties.
    Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Does not the Minister realise that this menace is becoming very serious indeed, and is a threat to increased production?
    Mr. Williams: I am fully aware that it is a very serious problem, but I am glad to see that, nasty as it is, it has been on the decline in the last year or two.

    Seed Import Licence
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking, in conjunction with the Board of Trade, to reduce the period which elapses between an application being made to his Department for an import licence for seed and its issue to the applicant.
    Mr. T. Williams: There are close working arrangements between my Department and the Board of Trade so as to ensure that no unnecessary time is taken. I do not accept the implication that there is avoidable delay.
    Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one case, particulars of which I have sent him, more than 10 weeks elapsed between the time of the application and the issue of the licence? Surely he is aware that the planting of seeds does not wait upon bureaucrats. Would he plant that fact firmly in the minds of his officials?
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has got hold of an unfortunate exception, and I hope he will not regard it as being in any way typical.

    Rabbits
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the damage done in some districts to farm crops by rabbits coming from forestry

    1419
    plantations; and whether he will instruct the Forestry Commission to take steps to kill these pests instead of spending money in purchasing wire netting to prevent such damage.
    Mr. T. Williams: I have heard complaints both that damage has been done to agricultural crops by rabbits coming from woodlands, and that woodland owners have suffered on account of rabbits coming from neighbouring land. I am satisfied that the Forestry Commission are most active in controlling rabbits on their properties. New plantations cannot be formed without destroying any rabbits present; wire netting is frequently necessary to prevent rabbits getting into the plantations and destroying the young trees.
    Mr. Baldwin: While I appreciate that this is a two-way traffic, may I remind the Minister of the correspondence which I recently had with him—and I thank him for the trouble he took over the matter—in which he informed me that the Forestry Commission were putting up wire to stop their rabbits getting on the farmers' land? It seems to me that it should be the other way about. The rabbits are doing as much damage on the Forestry Commission's land as on the agricultural land. Why not kill the rabbits?
    Mr. Williams: Surely the hon. Gentleman must know that when the Forestry Commission wire in an area it is in order that they may destroy all the rabbits within that area.
    Mr. M. Philips Price: Is it not a fact that Forestry Commission woodlands are freer from rabbits than many private properties around them?
    Mr. Williams: Certainly.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Widows' Pensions
    Commander Nobleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the recent increases in the pay of the Armed Forces and in the salaries of other Crown servants, he will now consider some amendment of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1947, for the benefit of widows.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply of 24th April to the hon. and gallant Member.
    Commander Noble: Does not the Minister agree that when pensions are based on salaries and on rank, then, if those salaries are, in fact, revised, it is normal to revise the pensions at the same time?
    Mr. Jay: Only in very exceptional circumstances have the Government ever departed from the principle of basing pensions on salaries.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Does not the extremely sharp rise in the cost of living create exceptional circumstances, and ought not the matter to be reviewed again now?
    Mr. Jay: Not necessarily. We thought this year that the first claim was that of the ordinary old age pensioners.
    Mr. Jennings: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that these people are suffering undue hardship today and that the matter deserves some consideration?
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: If the principle applies to old age pensioners, why not apply it to these pensioners? The principle is exactly the same.
    Mr. Jay: In all the circumstances, their need is greater, and, therefore, their claim should have first priority.

    Sports (Taxation)
    Mr. A. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the total number of speedway racing tracks contributing under the Entertainments Duty for each of the years 1945–51, together with the total amounts of money contributed to the Exchequer funds in each of the years mentioned;
    (2) the amount of Entertainments Duty payable on tickets of admission priced 1s., 1s. 9d., 2s. 3d., 3s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. for the following sports: speedway, football, rugby and cricket, in each of the years from 1945–51; and the total amounts of revenue to the Exchequer for each of these sports in the years stated.
    Mr. Jay: As the replies to these Questions contain a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Lewis: While thanking the Financial Secretary in anticipation of a favourable reply, may I ask him whether or not he can say whether there are now fewer speedway tracks contributing to the Entertainments Duty than there were in 1945, and to what extent that number is fewer?
    Mr. Jay: I think there has been a reduction. My hon. Friend can study the figures.
    Mr. Lewis: Is it not due to the unfair percentage of duty charged on speedway racing?
    Mr. Jay: That is a matter of opinion.
    Mr. Profumo: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will receive the revenue which he anticipated this year from speedway racing in view of the fact that in 1950 some two million fewer people attended speedway racing owing to the increased

    £'000

    Financial Year

    Football (including rugby football)

    Cricket

    Speedway and other motor-cycle and motor racing

    1945–6

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,320

    25

    *

    1946–47

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,200

    60

    300

    1947–48

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,320

    95

    450

    1948–49

    …

    …

    …

    …

    720

    75

    520

    1949–50

    …

    …

    …

    …

    640

    30

    600

    1950–51

    …

    …

    …

    …

    610

    30

    550

    The amounts of Entertainments Duty payable on certain admission prices charged at certain sports since 1945 have been:

    Amount of duty payable

    Inclusive admission price to public

    Speedway

    Football (including rugby football) and cricket

    Up to 9th September, 1950

    From 10th September, 1950

    Up to 4th May, 1946

    From 5th May, 1946 to 29th May, 1948

    From 30th May. 1948

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    d.

    1

    0

    3½

    3

    3½

    0½

    Nil

    1

    9

    8½

    8½

    8½

    3½

    2

    2

    3

    10½

    10½

    10½

    5½

    3

    3

    6

    1

    6

    1

    6

    1

    6

    11

    5

    4

    6

    2

    0

    2

    0

    2

    0

    1

    4

    7

    * No information is available to show receipts from this source in 1945–46.

    Mr. A. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of tax is charged for betting on speedway tracks; how far there is a difference in tax on totalisator betting on speedway tracks as against other forms of racetracks; and
    duty that year? Will not the result of this new duty mean that some tracks will close, so that the revenue from the total will be less than at the moment?
    Mr. Jay: We have no reason to think that the Estimates included in the Budget were incorrect.
    Following are the figures:
    I regret that full information to show the number of speedway tracks which have operated each year since 1945 is not available. In 1950–51, there were 37 speedway tracks in Great Britain at which Entertainments Duty was paid by means of certified returns, but no record is kept of the number of speedway tracks at which Entertainments Duty is paid by means of stamped tickets.
    The estimated yields of Entertainments Duty from admissions to certain sports since the financial year 1945–46 are shown in the following table. It is not possible to show separately the yield of Entertainments Duty from admissions to rugby or to speedway racing, but the amounts shown in the final column are mainly in respect of speedway racing.
    what was the total of money collected from betting tax on speedway tracks for each of the years 1945–51.
    Mr. Jay: I understand that no betting is allowed at speedway racing and no

    1423
    betting duty is therefore collected in respect of such racing. Where any racetrack is used for greyhound racing, the statutory duties on betting, of course, apply, but no distinction is made for this purpose between tracks which are used solely for greyhound racing and tracks which are used at other times for speedway racing.
    Mr. Lewis: In view of the facts which the Financial Secretary has given in his reply, is it not about time that the Treasury correctly classified speedway racing for the purposes of Entertainments Duty under its proper heading, and charged it at the same rate as in the case of football, cricket, rugby, and other sports?
    Mr. Jay: This House decided several years ago to make the distinction, and we see no reason to change the present arrangement.
    Mr. Lewis: But is it not possible for the House to correct a wrong decision? Because it made a wrong decision a few years back, is that not an added reason for correcting it now.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that speedway racing is a clean, open-air sport which family men like myself go to watch? There is no betting as at the dog tracks, and those of us who like to watch this sport have a deep sense of grievance that it is taxed in this manner as opposed to other sports such as boxing, soccer, and the like.
    Mr. Jay: I am sure that it is a clean, open-air sport, but so it was when this House decided to impose the duty.

    Equal Pay
    Miss Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make a statement after seeing the recent deputation on the application of women civil servants for equal pay.
    Mr. Jay: I have nothing to add to the answer my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member on 23rd January, 1951.
    Miss Ward: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been directed to the fact that in the North-West Region, women working on the coal belts have now been awarded equal pay with men for their
    1424
    holiday week, and that in the Civil Service in Nigeria women get equal pay with men? Is it not about time that the Minister now announced to the Civil Service the result of his deliberations after the deputation which he received as long ago as January? When will he give a reply?
    Mr. Jay: I was not previously aware of either of those facts, but I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for the information.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the total expenditure involved by raising the pay and salaries of all women teachers and women civil servants to the level of men doing comparable work.
    Mr. Jay: About £21 million a year.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can my hon. Friend say what, approximately, this would be in, say, 10 years' time?
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir, not without notice.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Could my hon. Friend break down those figures and say what would be the cost for teachers alone?
    Mr. Jay: The cost for teachers alone would be about £11,500,000.

  AUSTRALIA (CUBAN SUGAR TALKS)
  Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what discussions took place in London with the Premier of Queensland on the question of a possible sugar agreement with Cuba, in view of the fact that the Premier of Queensland had authority to act on this question on behalf of the Federal Government of Australia; and what representations His Majesty's Government has received on this matter from His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia and from the Government of Queensland.
  Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations on what dates he exchanged views with His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia on the question of a proposed sugar agreement with Cuba.
  The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): No such discussion took place with the Premier of Queensland. He came to London in December, 1950, with authority to act on behalf of the Federal Government of Australia in discussions on the price to be paid by the United Kingdom for sugar imported from Commonwealth producers in 1951 under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
  I discussed a possible sugar agreement with Cuba with the Australian Resident Minister on 8th March. The Resident Minister
  was accompanied by the Agent-General for Queensland. There has also been correspondence on this subject between us and the Australian Government.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it not a rather strange thing that as the Premier of Queensland, with authority to act on behalf of the Commonwealth Government, was here throughout last November and December, at the time when these talks were taking place with Cuba, no reference was made to him about this matter?
  Mr. Gordon-Walker: The Premier of Queensland was empowered by the Federal Government to do certain things. The reason why he was not informed at that time of our talks with Cuba was that they were still at a very exploratory stage. We told Australia on 1st March that we were having such talks with Cuba. There has not been any agreement reached yet with Cuba, so they have had very long notice and nothing has happened.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that at the time the Queensland Agent-General in London and the Resident Minister were told about these talks, they had been going on for six months? During that period we have had the visits from the Queensland Premier and from the Australian Prime Minister and no statement was made to either of those gentlemen.
  Mr. Gordon-Walker: That is quite right, because talks with Cuba had not reached a point or a particular subject which merited informing them. They were informed on 1st March. There is still no agreement with Cuba so there is no legitimate complaint.
  Mr. Peter Smithers: The right hon. Gentleman says they had not reached any subject which merited informing the Premier of Queensland, but is it not a fact that several months earlier the question of sugar had been discussed with the Cuban Government?
  Mr. Gordon-Walker: Yes, it had been generally mentioned, among other matters, but it had not crystallised down to this question, which was of concern to Australia. The moment it reached that point we informed the Australian Government.
  Mr. Braine: Does that answer mean that His Majesty's Government do not accept the principle that there should be prior consultation with Dominion and Empire Governments before even exploratory talks with foreign countries?
  Mr. Gordon-Walker: If it concerned a particular Commonwealth Government we would tell them. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is not in any way affected by the proposed agreement with Cuba.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of Question No. 65, which asks what representations His Majesty's Government have received on this matter from His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia and from the Government of Queensland?
  Mr. Gordon-Walker: I did say, of course, in my answer that I had seen the Resident Minister and that there had been correspondence on a number of occasions—I have not the dates in mind—between ourselves and the Australian Government. They put their views in that correspondence and when I met the Resident Minister and I gave the answer, namely, that the proposed agreement with Cuba does not in any way affect the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he knew of these talks and whether the Board of Trade told him?
  Mr. Gordon-Walker: Yes, of course. Each always knows what the other is doing.

  EXPORTS TO CHINA
  Mr. Eden (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister what commodities and articles are prohibited, except under licence, from export from British territories to China, and secondly what quantities of commodities and articles have been exported under licence to China in the last three months.
  The Prime Minister: So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the export to China is prohibited, except under licence, of the goods set out in the schedules to the Export of Goods (Control) (Consolidation) Order, 1950, as subsequently amended. It is not generally possible to distinguish in the trade returns between exports which have been licensed and those which do not require a licence. Licences have, however, been issued in the last three months for the export to China of about £6,800 of dyestuffs and about £1,250 of other commodities. Licensing arrangements vary considerably from one British Colonial Territory to another. As far as strategic materials are concerned, the Far Eastern Colonies follow the pattern of United Kingdom controls.
  Mr. Eden: Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that in the last three months no strategic materials—no materials with which war can be made—have been exported to China?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Eden: I only want to be clear that that would cover the Colonial Territories.
  The Prime Minister: As I understand, there has been a prohibition of all major strategic materials. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are points where one cannot say when one might have vague, possible, strategic materials, but so far as we can possibly ensure, no strategic materials have been sent.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: How many locomotives, ships and aircraft were contained in the £71,000 to which reference was made yesterday by the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn)?
  The Prime Minister: I understand none. I think a certain misapprehension arose because of the very broad categories used for our exports not only to
  1428
  China but to other countries and a broad thing such as "vehicles" and so forth might include bicycles, perambulators and the rest but there were, as a matter of fact, no warships, aircraft or anything of the sort.
  Major Guy Lloyd: Does the Prime Minister's statement mean that what he says applies also to exports from Hong Kong to China?
  The Prime Minister: Yes. I have pointed out we have stopped export of any strategic goods from here and from Hong Kong.
  Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: What is the nature of the exports from China to Hong Kong and other British territories, if any?
  The Prime Minister: That is a question that might be put to the President of the Board of Trade.
  Brigadier Head: Could the Prime Minister say whether he regards rubber as a strategic raw material?
  The Prime Minister: It might or might not be. We have in fact an absolute prohibition at the present time on rubber.
  Mr. Paton: Can the Prime Minister say if there is now any export of tungsten, a very highly valuable strategic material, from China to us?
  The Prime Minister: I could not answer that question without notice.
  Mr. Blackburn: Is the Prime Minister aware—and I say this with great respect and I shall put down a Motion of Censure on His Majesty's Government this afternoon to prove my words—that the President of the Board of Trade has stated in a written answer given to me on Monday that 3,430 tons of iron and steel and manufactures thereof, in the way of exports to China, went in the months of January to March, 1951, and that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has said 120,000 tons of rubber went to China between July, 1950, and March, 1951? Is he aware that it is quite useless for him to blame me for the mistakes of the President of the Board of Trade in the written answer which he gave? Is it not high time this matter was clarified because it is causing immense trouble between America and ourselves?
  The Prime Minister: I did not blame the hon. Member. I only pointed out that he laboured under a certain misapprehension because of the width of the categories on which the Board of Trade terms are based. Iron and steel manufactures include products from normally finished steel to things like wire mattresses, nails, tacks, rivets, manhole covers and a whole range of very minor matters, and I think there was a distinct misapprehension owing to the categories in the reply given.
  Mr. James Hudson: Is the Prime Minister aware of the wide publicity given in the Opposition Press to the statement made by the hon. Member for North-field (Mr. Blackburn), that large numbers of ships and aircraft were sent to China by us? Would he be able to deny categorically that statement?
  The Prime Minister: None whatever.
  Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Is the Prime Minister aware that on 29th January the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs assured the House that no embargo whatsoever had been placed upon the export of rubber to China? At what date subsequently to that was this very important step taken, and can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that no substantial quantities of rubber have been exported?
  Mr. Woodburn: Further to that point——
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Speaker: We must hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.
  Mr. Woodburn: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), could the Prime Minister say whether at any time either this country or the United States has declared a complete economic boycott of China?
  The Prime Minister: The matter of economic sanctions is still under consideration by the United Nations. Natural rubber was not included in the prohibited and restricted lists originally owing to the great difficulty of control by export licensing, but in the first months of this year it was restricted by administrative action, and since then there have been stricter limitations. That was done in
  1430
  agreement with the United States of America and finally, in April, there was complete prohibition.
  Mr. A. R. W. Low: With regard to the £71,000 worth of vehicles and other things, will the Prime Minister say whether or not load-carrying vehicles were exported from this country to China and, if so, why they were allowed to go when the British Air Forces and the United States Air Forces are busy every day trying to destroy them in Korea?
  The Prime Minister: I have not exact information as to what particular categories came under these vehicles. They include locomotives and ships and a very wide range of things and, as I say, bicycles. I do not know the amount for which the hon. Member asks.
  Hon. Members: Find out.
  Mr. Burke: Does the Prime Minister expect the same publicity for his statement in the Press as was given to the Opposition case?
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: In order to clear up the misunderstanding to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, will he arrange to submit to the House detailed information specifying in particular exactly what has been sent to China?
  The Prime Minister: I will certainly do it if it is possible. It means very great examination of all the Customs returns and, remember, it means checking up on licences which were given months ago and which have not been brought forward. There is no intention whatever of excluding from the House any knowledge it ought to have, but I think people ought not to suggest by any manner of means, that what has gone from here has been used against our men, because everybody knows the sources of the Chinese army's supplies.
  Mr. Eden: Could I ask the Prime Minister to bear in mind that questions were put to the Minister of Defence yesterday and that I merely asked him to give the information today? The right hon. Gentleman had not got that information. Had he been able to give us an answer, this would not have arisen at all.
  The Prime Minister: That is rather a different question. I have endeavoured to give the right hon. Gentleman the fullest answer today.
  Mr. Blackburn: Is the Prime Minister aware—and this occurred while he was away; and I am not in any way trying to make a personal attack—that last week when I asked the Minister of State in this House about this matter he first of all gave a vague answer and then said that he could not give a guarantee about the matter but that no significant quantities of strategic materials had gone? I asked him, as a supplementary—"Surely no commodities whatever should go?"; and he was not able to give the undertaking I sought.
  Hon. Members: Speech.
  Mr. Speaker: I think we had better get on.
  The Prime Minister: May I make a correction to a statement I made just now? I think I may have overstated the matter. With regard to the exports of rubber, they have been subject to export licensing since 9th April to prevent undue and enlarged quantities being sent to any particular destination. But there has not been, and cannot be I think, an absolute prohibition to see that no rubber whatever gets to China.
  Mr. Eden: The Prime Minister has now given rather a different picture. Is it not the purpose of the whole House to ensure that no strategic raw materials reach China? That being our purpose, I should have thought, therefore, that supplies of rubber for delivery to China ought to have been held up. Is there no method by which that can be done?
  The Prime Minister: It is a question of degree—how much is strategic. As I understand it, it is a matter which has been done in agreement with the Americans. It is really a question of quantities. Obviously large quantities would amount to strategic supplies, but a very small quantity of rubber for particular purposes would not. I understand that is how it is dealt with under the export licensing.
  Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Arising out of that point, is it not a fact that in the first three months of this year more than half as much rubber was exported to China as the total amount last year, and is not that a significant increase?
  The Prime Minister: I am not aware of that. I could not answer that without notice.
  Mr. Eden: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures—if not now, then on Monday or at some convenient time soon—as to what exports of rubber are going to China? When we know that, the House will be in a position to take a view of the matter one way or another.
  The Prime Minister: That is a question which might be put to the President of the Board of Trade. I will try to give the detailed figures.
  Mr. Churchill: I understand the Prime Minister to say that at any rate from now on, the policy in regard to the export of strategic materials will be in full accord, not only on rubber but in other matters, with that of the United States?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That is what I am saying. This was done in accord with the United States.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: Could I ask for the business for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 7TH MAY—Report and Third Reading of the National Health Service Bill.
TUESDAY, 8TH MAY—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 9TH MAY—Motion to commit the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill to the Scottish Standing Committee;
Committee stage of the National Insurance Bill.
THURSDAY, 10TH MAY—Supply (15th Allotted Day) Committee. The subject for debate will be announced later.
[Debate on British Far Eastern Prisoners of War, was announced later.]
FRIDAY, 11TH MAY—It is proposed to adjourn for the Whitsun Recess until Tuesday, 29th May.
Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we have pressed a great many times about the Festival Bill. I think it is only right that I should say

1433
that we have not asked for it to be dealt with next week, because we want the report to be available to the House before we try to debate the Bill. I understand that it will not be available at any rate early next week, and we suggested that the matter might all be taken after Whitsun. May I further say this about Thursday's business? The right hon. Gentleman knows there has been much discussion between the usual channels and otherwise about the topic for that day. Maybe it would be suitable if on this date we took the question of our prisoners-of-war in Japan?
Mr. Ede: I can bear out what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Festival Bill. We had arrangements to take it one day next week and we received the intimation which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. As far as we are concerned, it will be quite convenient if, through the usual channels, it is arranged to take the question which he mentioned—the subject of Far Eastern prisoners-of-war.
Mr. Boothby: I understand that there is a Lords Amendment to the Sea Fish Industry Bill. Would it not be possible to get the agreement of this House to that Amendment, so that the Bill could receive Royal Assent before the Whitsuntide Recess?
Mr. Ede: I will see what can be arranged. It is usual during the week to put in Lords Amendments as they are received.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will it be possible to adjourn the House tomorrow to enable hon. Members to be at the South Bank on the occasion of Their Majesties' visit to the Exhibition; or have amicable arrangements for this purpose, been frustrated by a curmudgeonly attitude on the part of some hon. Members?
Mr. Ede: I dealt with this matter last week. It was impossible to secure general agreement.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES (PROTECTION OF CIVIL INTERESTS) BILL
  3.50 p.m.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Robens): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Second time."
  The purpose of this Bill is to provide on a permanent basis reasonable protection of the rights and civil liabilities of persons who are called up from time to-time for service or training with the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces, of persons who volunteer in similar circumstances for service or training, and of National Service men. In appropriate cases this protection is also afforded to their dependants, whose position is indeed often the major anxiety of these men in these circumstances.
  The protection under Part I of the Bill extends to any person, whether a dependant or not, who is financially affected. The Bill does not afford protection in the case of persons who enter in the ordinary way upon a Regular engagement as a result of volunteering, because the Regular may reasonably be expected to adjust his domestic and civil affairs to fit the service career which he has chosen.
  Protection of the employment of most of the persons covered by the Bill is already provided as appropriate in the National Service Act, 1948, in the Reinstatement of Civil Employment Act, 1950, and the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Act, 1951. When this latter Act was being debated, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air informed the House that the Government were proposing to introduce a Bill covering, amongst other things, superannuation rights and restriction on the execution of remedies for default in payment of money.
  This Bill carries out the intention then stated. It will apply to the Z reservists and others shortly to proceed on their training, but it will also apply in retrospect, in so far as is appropriate, and without creating the anomaly of retrospective offences, to classes of reservists such as those who were first recalled to Korea in the summer of last year.

  1435
  It will probably be convenient, in what I am afraid must inevitably be a lengthy speech, to describe first, very briefly, the different kinds of protection given in the Bill and the classes of men covered by it. We might then discuss the general principles on which the Government has been acting in drawing it up, and then describe in more detail just what is implied by the various Parts of the Bill.
  The first Part deals with the debts or other obligations of a Service man and, broadly speaking, provides that a creditor may enforce payment of the debts only with the leave of the court—for instance, putting the bailiffs in, taking possession of any property, or forfeiting a deposit. The court will consider whether the failure to meet the obligation in question is due to the performance of service, and may either give or refuse the creditor leave to proceed, or give leave subject to conditions. This protection is given in respect of service of every kind described in the Schedule.
  The second Part protects a Service man's home. In the case of persons performing service for three months or more, this protection takes the form of extending the Rent Acts to premises to which those Acts do not already apply; in other cases it prevents the Service man or his family being evicted from their home without leave of the court.
  The third form of protection given by this Bill is in respect of business premises. In Part III the aim has been to protect the small man—the "working proprietor"—from termination of the tenancy of the place where he carries on his business or profession while he is away on service and unable to attend to his affairs. This does not apply to men called up for short periods of training—in other words, for less than three months.
  Next, there comes in Part IV protection for a man's superannuation rights while on service. This portion of the Bill makes it possible for the appropriate authorities to make rules which will enable the period of service to be counted for superannuation purposes. The Civil Service, local government, police and firemen are specially dealt with, but this Part is also of general application to private superannuation schemes. Except in the case of those National Service men whose rights are
  1436
  already protected by other legislation, it affords protection to all classes of men and women covered by the Schedule.
  Part V of the Bill is designed to give protection against loss of benefits under, and to prevent forfeiture of, policies taken out with industrial assurance companies, collecting societies and friendly societies, where the owner falls down on the payment of his premiums as a result of his service, or some one else's service. It applies again to all classes covered by the Schedule. Part VI is a general Part which deals with such matters as evidence as to the performance of service, application to Northern Ireland, and so on.
  The Schedule sets out the descriptions of service in respect of which protection is given, though not every description of service is covered by all Parts of the Bill. Broadly the cover is in respect of Reservists and Auxiliaries called up for service, Reservists and Auxiliaries called up for training under the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Act, 1951, or who, whether they were liable or not to such call up, volunteered—men and women—for service or training, National Service men who were called up under the National Service Acts for their two years' whole time service and for their part-time training, and members of the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces during their period of annual training.
  The need for the forms of protection given in this Bill is very similar for all these different classes, and the principles upon which the Bill is based, which I hope to describe later, make it appropriate that, except where the shortness of the service renders it unnecessary, the protection should be available to all classes in which cases of individual hardship may arise. This principle of the need for protection is, of course, not a new one. The Military Training Act, 1939, did something comparable, but, of course, the war and subsequent legislation has altered the whole background against which this subject has now to be considered.
  In framing this Bill—and I am sure that when hon. Members get down to dealing with it in detail they will recognise what a difficult Bill it is, providing, I should think, a lawyers' day out, if I may say so—the Government had to balance two conflicting interests. We had to look at the reservist or other Service man who is

  1437
  required, or who volunteers, to leave his home and his family and his employment, possibly to go abroad, and to accept rates of pay which will probably make a very big difference in his standards of living. On the other hand, the creditors and landlords have rights, and may well be placed themselves in difficult circumstances if they are unable to exercise their rights as they had intended and would have been able legally to do had the man not been called up for service. In those cases, and they will probably be few, in which hardship arises, it is not, therefore, all on one side, and in any individual case it may fall more heavily on the landlord or creditor than on the Service man. Indeed, the landlord or creditor may himself be a Service man who himself will enjoy the protection of the Bill.
  So there are these two main principles on which this Bill has been based. First, that the Service man while on service, and for an appropriate period after that, should have some protection against the strict or unreasonable enforcement of certain of his obligations, against being turned out of his house or business premises; but equally no hard and fast rule has been, or could be, laid down, because this might act unfairly in the circumstances. Instead, the necessary steps are taken to ensure that the courts can intervene either through the obligations placed on the landlord or creditor, or through the rights given to Service men to apply for protection. In dealing with each case the court can consider the individual circumstances, and has discretion as to the course of action it may direct.
  The second principle which I am sure, the House will agree is very important, is that, so far as possible, use should be made either of existing machinery and procedure, Or of that which was well known during the war and the years immediately after it. Part I is modelled on the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts which were in force during the war and for some time thereafter, and Part II makes use of the Rent Acts, appropriately modified. Part III makes use in England and Wales of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill now passing through Parliament, and in Scotland of the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949. Part IV applies the same principles to superannuation rights as was applied in the war, and Part V
  1438
  sets out a system which worked very satisfactorily also in war time.
  This Bill does not deal with the question of the making up by his employer of the balance of civil pay, in those instances where the remuneration for his service is less than the remuneration he received in his civilian employment. That is, after all, a matter
  for individual employers. The House will be aware from recent statements by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the Government as an employer have decided that balance of civil pay is to be paid to civil servants called up for service in Korea and to those called up for periods of three and 18 months under the plan announced by the Prime Minister on 29th January; and a measure of special leave with pay will be given to staff called up for 15-day period. I have no doubt that, in connection with that declaration, other employers have considered and are now considering their attitude.
  It is necessary now that I should say a word or two about the salient points relating to each Part of the Bill. The first Part, as I have said, has been based largely on the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts which were in force during the war and applied generally to the whole population; so that the courts, on whom this Bill imposes a difficult jurisdiction, will have the advantage of their war time experience.
  I think I should make it clear that it is no purpose of this Bill to see that a Service man, or any other person protected by it, is relieved of his debts and obligations. The protection is against the enforcement of remedies against a person who is in difficulty as a result of the performance of service, either by himself or by someone else. It assumes, however, that, given time, he will make proper arrangements for adjusting his affairs and to meet his debts and obligations. The question of any financial assistance necessary for him to do so does not arise on this Bill. It obviously arises in another connection entirely.
  Before proceeding to enforce a judgment, or take a self-help remedy, against a Service man, it is incumbent on the creditor to find out whether or not his debtor is covered by this Bill. This raises the question of the method of identifying such a person, and since this comes up

  1439
  also under other parts of the Bill I shall deal with it more fully later.
  The second Part of the Bill deals with protection against eviction from residential premises. The majority of dwelling-houses are already covered by the Rent Acts, but there are certain categories not so covered which are of importance to the Service man. I ought to make it clear that this special protection is provided only where the man has one or more dependants living in the premises at the time of his service, and where they continue to live in those premises. Bearing in mind that this protection is necessarily at someone else's expense, we do not think it right to extend it to a man living alone, but think we should confine it to covering the serving man's family to give him an assurance, which means a great deal to a Service man, that while he is away on service, his wife and children will not be turned out of their home.
  In the case of persons performing service for less than three months the protection takes the form of protecting them from eviction without the leave of the Court. In the case of persons performing service for three months or more, the protection takes the form of applying the Rent Acts to premises not already protected by these Acts. Broadly speaking, I think it can be said that the result of applying the Rent Acts will be that the landlord will not normally be able to obtain possession of the premises unless he can show that there is suitable alternative accommodation. Protection under this Part of the Bill—and this is, I think, of importance—is for the period of service and four months after it.
  So far as unfurnished accommodation is concerned, the main classes of premises not covered by the Rent Acts are houses of high rateable value, local authority houses, houses on Crown property, houses where the rent payable is less than two-thirds of the rateable value, and premises occupied by an employee in circumstances which do not make him a tenant of the employer, in which case he would be covered by the Rent Acts. We shall apply the Rent Acts to all these cases except where the Crown is the immediate landlord of the Service man.
  As the House knows, the Rent Acts at present do not apply to any case where the Crown owns an interest in the property. The Bill applies the Acts to
  1440
  cases where the Crown interest is that of a superior landlord but not that of the immediate landlord. At the present moment, where the Crown is the immediate landlord and the tenancy is one to which the Rent Acts would normally apply, it behaves as if it were bound by the Rent Acts. The same principle will apply here, and I should like to give this specific assurance, not only on behalf of Government Departments and the Commissioners of Crown Lands, but also on behalf of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, that where they are immediate landlords, they will act as if they were bound by Part II of the Bill.
  As far as furnished lettings are concerned, rent tribunals at present only have power to give security of tenure where an application has been made to fix the rent. In the case of furnished lettings, to which Part II of the Bill applies, the rent tribunals will be empowered to extend the tenancy for periods not exceeding three months at a time, even though there is no application before them to fix the rent.
  Mr. John Hay: Before he leaves that point will the right hon. Gentleman clear up this question? Does he mean by what he has just said that of their own volition, rent tribunals will be intervening in these matters? I assume there must be some sort of application?
  Mr. Robens: Application will be made, but they will be entitled to extend the period under the Bill.
  Mr. Hay: Application by the Service man?
  Mr. Robens: Yes, or by the Service man's wife or dependants.
  The other type of dwelling was, of course, concerned with the people living in furnished lettings where board or attendance is provided. We looked at this very carefully, always having in mind that one wants to give the utmost protection, and it was felt, after very careful consideration, that the personal relationship in a letting of that kind could not very suitably be dealt with by legal provisions, and so there is no protection in the Bill of furnished lettings where board or attendance is provided. I think it will be found that this is the only case where some protection is not extended.

  1441
  While the general principle of the Rent Acts is being applied to these additional classes of dwellings, certain special points have had to be provided for, and of these I would like to mention two in particular. First, there is the case where, for one reason or another, the tenant has been paying a rent which is less than two-thirds of the rateable value of his house, and because of that he does not enjoy the protection of the Acts. This will usually be because the expiring tenancy is a long lease of over 21 years and the lessee is paying a ground rent.
  In this case, the Service man, like any other occupying leaseholder in such a position, will get the benefit of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill which is now passing through Parliament. This means that he will get up to two years' extension of his long lease on its existing terms, including rent, and will therefore, so long as that protection lasts, not fall within this Bill at all. In a few other cases where a rent of less than two-thirds of the rateable value is being paid, the Rent Tribunal will be empowered to fix a reasonable rent.
  Second—and this again is important as it is a peculiar case—is the tied cottage with employment tenancy. Here, as in the case of other premises protected by the Rent Acts, the general principle is to be that a man's dependents cannot be evicted while he is away on service unless alternative accommodation is available. The Bill provides, however, that the court may grant possession without proof of alternative accommodation if the landlord is a public authority and the premises are required by that authority in the public interest.
  I should like to mention right away the kind of case one has in mind in dealing with this matter. The case we had in mind was, for example, that of the lock-keeper's cottage or the signalman's cottage, where it is essential for the man having that particular job to live on the spot, and no other accommodation is available for him.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: What about the miners?
  Mr. Robens: I do not think that miners' houses meet the kind of case to which I am referring, which is the isolated house for a specific public service.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Would not they come within the exception to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred?
  Mr. Robens: I am not too sure on that point. As I am not well versed on legal matters, I would prefer the learned Attorney-General to deal with that point when he replies. I can only say that in framing this Bill, that was the kind of case we had in mind—where an individual would have to go, without having alternative accommodation, and it was essential in the public interest that the man who was going to do that job should live on that particular spot, and there is no other accommodation for him.
  Mr. Keenan: Why not alternative accommodation? Surely, he can claim the protection of the Act.
  Mr. Robens: That is a matter which we can discuss in detail in Committee. I think that this is a Bill which we should look at in a very human way. We are not going to talk politics in connection with a Bill of this kind. The House will be anxious to protect the rights of the Service man, and anything that we can do to improve the Bill in Committee we shall be only too pleased to consider, in order to produce a Bill of which the House will be proud and which will do the right thing by the Service man and his dependants.
  To continue, the House will be aware that, once the Rent Acts have applied to a letting of any dwelling house, they continue to apply, and particularly that the rent for that letting is the standard rent for any future letting. In this Bill, we are extending the Rent Acts, for very special reasons and for strictly limited periods, to certain classes of tenants for whom it has not, in general, been thought necessary to give the kind of protection that the Rent Acts provide.
  That, as I have explained, is because the tenant is a Service man who is away from home and unable to make the usual arrangements to provide accommodation for his wife and family. But it is no part of the policy of this Bill to make permanent extensions in the scope of the Rent Acts by a sort of side wind. We do not mean to provide that just because the tenant of a particular house at a given time happens to be a Service man and enjoys the benefits of this part of the

  1443
  Bill, that future letting of the house shall always be subject to the Rent Acts. That would obviously not be fair, because other similar properties which did not come within these provisions, would not be affected.
  So we have made it quite clear in the Bill that once a Service man has come home and settled down with his wife and family—that is, after the four months' protection which we give him at the end of his service—that protection comes to an end, and the provisions affecting the application of the Rent Acts automatically come into being. From then on, neither the ex-Service man himself, nor any future tenant, will have the Rent Acts protection.
  While Part II protects the Service man from eviction from his home, Part III protects him in respect of his business premises if he is a working proprietor. The Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill, and the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949, give protection to shop tenants of all kinds, but to shop tenants only. When we are dealing with Service men, I think that a rather different approach is justified. On the one hand, it seems reasonable to extend protection to all kinds of small businesses and professional practices, including small garage men and people like that.
  A temporary substitute may be able to carry the business on during the Service man's absence on a day-to-day basis; but that is a very different matter from having to negotiate a new lease if, for example, the old one falls in while the Service man is away on service, or from having to look for alternative premises, and decide whether they would be suitable, for instance from the point of view of maintaining goodwill.
  On the other hand, we think that protection need be given only if the Service man is, in effect, the boss of a one-man business. After all, if he is only one of a number of partners in a bigger concern, I think it reasonable to argue that the other partners can look after his interests, so we give this protection to the one-man business. I suppose that we could really compare that case with the employee's right to reinstatement, since it is really a protection for his livelihood.
  For the method of giving protection, we follow closely the machinery which the House has already approved in
  1444
  Part II of the Leasehold Bill. That is, if a tenancy expires we give a right to apply to the county court for its renewal. Any person acting on the Service man's behalf can make application for the new tenancy. The court will, of course, only be able to grant renewal in a case where the business is still being carried on in the man's absence, and will have a wide discretion, subject to certain guidance, to decide whether the grant of a new tenancy is in all the circumstances reasonable. If a new tenancy is granted, it can be for any length of term the court thinks fit, provided that it will not end later than four months after the end of the man's service. The court are also to fix the rent and other terms of the new tenancy according to what they think is reasonable in all the circumstances.
  This part of the Bill, like the Leasehold Bill on which it is largely modelled, is binding on the Crown as an immediate and as a superior landlord, subject to special safeguards which enable Government Departments to resist the grant of a new tenancy of premises, which are required on security grounds or in the public interest. The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster
  are not bound by Part III, but they have given an assurance that they propose to act in accordance with its principles. Exactly the same principles have been followed for Scotland, but the code which we use for this purpose is not that of the Leasehold Bill, which does not apply to Scotland, but the slightly different code contained in the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949.
  I ought to say at this stage something which I did say before, but which it is important that we should bear in mind, namely, precisely who is covered. This does not apply to a man doing a short period of training and a short period of training in the Bill is a period of not less than three months. Of course, this Part of the Bill does not remove any rights the Service man may have under the Leasehold Bill or the Scottish Act. If he is a shop tenant but not a working proprietor, he gets the protection of those Measures only: if he is the working proprietor of a business other than a shop, he gets the protection of this Bill only: if he is both a shop tenant and a working proprietor, he gets

  1445
  both codes of protection and in so far as they are different, he can choose the one which suits his purpose best.
  Brigadier Head: The right hon. Gentleman did say that this Bill applies to nobody doing less than three months. He said earlier, however, that it applied to the National Service man doing part-time service, but part-time service is less than three months.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman put in a "not."
  Mr. Robens: Did I? I will repeat that part. When we are talking about long periods, we are speaking in terms of three months or more. When we are talking about short service we mean under three months. I am sorry, but this is a very complicated Bill and I have had a lot of other things to do recently, so that it was a job to get hold of it.
  The fourth form of protection given by the Bill is in respect of superannuation rights. This protection has already been given to National Service men by the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1948 and the Police Pensions Act, 1948, and what this Part of the Bill does is to extend that same form of protection to all the other persons performing the classes of service mentioned in the Schedule. The point here is to permit public authorities and trustees of private pensions schemes, covering industry and commerce generally, to treat for superannuation purposes the period of service defined under the Bill as though it were a continuation of the man's normal occupation. This system worked satisfactorily during the war, and has been shown by the experience with National Service men, to meet the needs of the situation.
  Part V of the Bill sets out the provisions relating to relief where owners of policies are unable to pay premiums as the result of the owner or some other person being on service as defined under the Bill. The main provisions are that, provided a minimum of one year's premium has been paid, policies may not be forfeited because of non-payment of premiums due to service, and here is also provision for reinstatement of any policies already forfeited in similar circumstances before the passing of this Bill. Clause 44 deals in detail with the manner in which the sum assured may be adjusted in respect of premiums not paid.
  1446
  These detailed provisions—I am sure the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) will be interested in this small point—might perhaps have been made by Order in Council under the Bill, but in view of the experience I had for some years in another capacity, I thought it wiser on the whole that the arrangements should be subject to full Parliamentary control. [HON. MEMDERS: "Hear, hear."] When I was writing that bit into the speech I thought it would get a "Hear, hear" at least from the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have not failed to oblige the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Robens: As regards ordinary life policies, which are not covered by Part V of the Bill, the Board of Trade have been in consultation with the Life Offices Association and the Associated Scottish Life Offices, and understand that their member Offices are prepared to give the most sympathetic consideration to all cases in which Reservists have difficulty in meeting their premiums by reason of their call-up. There was a somewhat similar arrangement during the last war and from my own personal experience, I think it worked very well.
  There are two points in the last and general Part of the Bill to which attention should be called. The first relates to Clause 48, the evidence as to performance of relevant service, and it is desirable to pick up at this stage the point made earlier about the effect which this Bill has under Parts I and II upon those members of the public who are creditors or landlords of men and women undertaking service of the kind mentioned in the Schedule to this Bill.
  Under Parts III and V of the Bill it is the Service man or someone acting on his behalf who has to apply for the protection and it is very necessary, therefore, that it should be reasonably easy for both parties to know that the service being performed is protected in these various ways. More particularly, it is of the greatest importance that the dependants of the man concerned should know the kinds of protection to which they are entitled and how they can show that they are so entitled, for even where the interests of the creditor or landlord

  1447
  are affected, without any steps having to be taken by the Service man or his dependants, the warning signal may often be given by the statements of the serving man's family.
  In the first place, therefore, careful arrangements will be made by the Service Departments and by my Ministry to ensure, as far as practicable, that the men themselves at the time of call-up are aware of their rights and, more important still, that their wives are aware of them.
  Brigadier Head: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose that this should be done by pamphlet or by a talk to the men? My own experience is that it is very difficult to get men to read pamphlets especially on subjects like this.
  Mr. Robens: I am going to describe the arrangements that are proposed in the Bill. If hon. Members think that they can improve on this method of notification, we will look at it. All we want to do is to make certain that the Service man knows his rights under the Bill and also that his wife knows of his rights under the Bill, because anything can happen if a chap is abroad for two or three years. We shall ensure that the dependants of the man will know.
  Secondly, the Service Departments and, as far as conscientious objectors are concerned, my Ministry, will do their best to provide, where called on to do so, certificates of performance of service where it is in doubt that the persons concerned in fact qualify for protection. These can be produced readily where the proper Service particulars are given and every effort will be made to see that the man's dependants know what these are, and where they should apply for such a certificate.
  The second point relates to Clause 51 under which the Bill is to apply to Northern Ireland by Order in Council. This method of proceeding has been adopted at the request of the Northern Ireland Government, as the most practical method for a Bill which involves so many different subjects and powers. While the matters dealt with in the Bill are mainly ones on which the Northern Ireland Parliament has power to legislate, the delay which would inevitably be entailed in passing similar legislation in Northern Ireland will be
  1448
  avoided under the method proposed in Clause 51, and at the same time the rights of the Northern Ireland Parliament to pass further legislation on the same subjects are expressly preserved.
  This Bill, as I previously said, is very long and technical, and I apologise to the House for a rather lengthy speech, but I did feel when I was given this Bill and the notes on the Bill, that as this affects the lives of so many people it was right for me to go into great detail on the Second Reading. I felt sure that the House would bear with me in doing so. Of course, we could have divided it into two or three Bills, but I think it is preferable, on the whole, to put together in one place all the forms of protection to which it is felt men called up for the country's service in peace-time are entitled. That is something which I learned, of course, from hon. Members opposite on many occasions when introducing other Bills.
  It is not anticipated that the number who will require to apply for protection will be large. I am sure the good will and the sense of the community at large will prevent that, but the aim has been to ensure that there is protection for the individual cases where severe hardship might arise. It is to protect those individuals that the Bill is presented.
  4.31 p.m.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: This is indeed a very complicated Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour when he concluded his speech made some reference to his feelings when he was given this Bill on entering his new office. I suspect that perhaps his feelings were fairly strong with regard to the complexities of the Bill which it had suddenly fallen to him to deal with, and I am grateful to him, as I am sure we all are, for the way in which he has tackled the formidable task of explaining so complicated a Measure in such a short time.
  This is a very substantial Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought it would constitute a lawyers' day out. I think that a more accurate description would be to say that it would certainly constitute a lawyers' purgatory, unless the lawyers are amply supported by the Service representatives on the other side of the House and by the brigadiers and others on this side of the House.

  1449
  In some respects this is a really terrible Bill. I am not sure that it is not a worse Bill in some respects than the Town and Country Planning Bill which was bad enough, and the Leasehold Reform Bill which again was a very bad one in some respects. This is a terrible Bill because, first of all, it is a difficult one to read. If there is any hon. Member who is still suffering from insomnia, I think he ought to listen to the speeches on the Bill today, or start reading it, and he will soon find a cure. Secondly it must have been a difficult Bill to draft, and I should like to express my sympathy to the Parliamentary draftsmen and my congratulations on the way in which they have dealt with the difficulties. Thirdly, it is not at all an easy Bill to comprehend. The long Explanatory Memorandum has made it much easier, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has contributed to that very considerably. We should commiserate with him in having to face so formidable a task so soon after entering his new office, and congratulate him also on the way in which he triumphed over the difficulties.
  One thing that can be said is that the object of this Bill can be very shortly stated. As I understand, it is to give protection to those whose civilian life has been disrupted by recall to the Forces, whether for a short period or for a long period and to protect them and their dependants from the consequences
  which might, but for this Bill, ensue. We on this side of the House entirely support and agree with that object, and I say straight away, in case there may be some anxiety among hon. Members opposite, who perhaps are now a little exhausted after the manoeuvres of last night, that we shall not, of course, divide on the Second Reading of this Measure. We welcome it. Indeed, we have from this side of the House pressed for something of this sort.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) on 22nd November raised in this House the question of securing some protection for those who were occupying tied houses. He was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low). My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) also pressed not only for the protection of those in occupation of tied houses but for something to be done with regard to
  1450
  superannuation. It is not uninteresting for me to observe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour—whom I am glad to see here—in a spirit of despondency on that occasion which I am glad has now evaporated, said in reply:
  "I do not believe that we can solve these problems by legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 375.]
  Well, here we have the Bill. No doubt, he has changed his belief, or be cannot be very keen in his enthusiasm about the effect of the Bill.
  This Bill deals not only with the case of the man recalled who was occupying a tied house—it not only protects his wife and family in his absence—but it also deals with superannuation, insurance policies and a wide field in addition. It is the result of trying to achieve that most desirable object of protecting the recalled Service men and women that we get a Bill of this length and complexity. It will be necessary—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree with this—that we should give very careful consideration to the contents of this Bill in Committee, and I hope that if time permits, we shall be given a little time between now and the start of the Committee stage so that we may give further consideration to the details before the Committee stage; that in turn may shorten the Committee stage.
  We shall consider this Bill in Committee not in any hostile spirit—I can give the right hon. Gentleman that definite assurance—but with a view to trying to effect improvements, and we all know that when we get a non-controversial Measure, it is wonderful how this House can improve a Bill, in spite of all the trouble and care that may have been taken first in its preparation. We shall also seek to achieve another objective which I myself think is of great importance if this Bill is to operate as we all want it to operate, and that is to see if we cannot secure some degree of simplification in this very complicated Measure. I do not know if it will be possible to secure that, but on one thing I am certain; it is really very desirable that we should bring about some simplification if we can.
  Each part of this Bill, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees, is very complicated. I would hesitate to say

  1451
  which is the most complicated, but as an illustration of its complexity may I take one case. Take the case where a judgment has been obtained in the High Court against an individual for a sum of money due under a contract, and the solicitors for the successful plaintiff want to enforce the judgment. That is a very simple case. They, of course, will not know whether the man or woman who is the defendant to such an action is or is not protected by this Bill. They will obviously have a look at the Bill when it becomes an Act.
  The first thing they will do will be to start at the beginning, and they will see under Clause 2, that before they enforce the judgment they will have to apply for the leave of the court to its enforcement unless the contract on which they sue was made after "the relevant date." They will probably search to see what that means. They will find that referred to in Clause 3 (10), where it says:
  "The relevant date means the date on which the service man in question began to perform the period of relevant service."
  There is a proviso that when he performs two or more periods of service, "relevant date" means the commencement of the last or the latest of those periods of service.
  Then the solicitors will have to try to discover from the Measure what is meant by "period of relevant service." Unless they can find out that, they cannot find out the relevant date, and cannot find whether they have to get the leave of the court to proceed to enforce judgment. "Relevant service" they will find defined in Clause 50 (1) as
  "service after the fifteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty, of a description specified in the Schedule to this Act."
  We have not got to the end of the matter yet, because when the solicitors look at the Schedule, they will see a long list of services
  "relevant for the purposes of this Act."
  Many solicitors will now be inclined to give up the pursuit. Few solicitors would be able to determine whether or not a man against whom judgment has been obtained was or was not performing, or had commenced to perform, service within that Schedule before or after the
  1452
  contract was made on which judgment was obtained.
  Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: It would appear that the Bill does at least protect the civil interests of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces, which is its purpose?
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not at all sure that that follows, as I shall indicate in a moment.
  By a lucky chance, the solicitors may turn back to Clause 48 and find there that they can get a certificate from the appropriate authority as to whether the man is serving a period of service, when it commenced and all the necessary information. It follows from that, that the granting or issuing of such certificates is going to be of immense importance if this Part of the Bill is to operate. I am merely taking this one illustration from Part I of the Bill to indicate the complexities, because it is important to try to iron them out in Committee. One could give similar illustrations under the other Parts of the Bill.
  This certificate will be a very important ingredient in the operation of Part I, and indeed of the other Parts of the Bill. It is important that the public and the legal profession should be acquainted with the power of obtaining such a certificate, and should be told to whom application for such a certificate should be made. There is no information in the Bill as to that. The certificate can be given by anyone authorised by the Admiralty, the Army Council or the Air Council, and it is very important indeed that it should be speedily issued after application is made for it. I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to give us information on these points: To whom should the application for the certificate be made and how long will it take to get it? We all know how long it takes to get replies from Government Departments, and the Service Departments are no exception from the general rule in that respect.
  It seems that where any judgment of the nature I have mentioned is obtained in the High Court, or any judgment of the nature affected by the Part I of the Bill, whether against a man or a woman—the Schedule refers to people who served in the A.T.S. and have been recalled, to the W.R.E.N.S., to Queen

  1453
  Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service and of course, and I am glad that it does, to the Territorials—it will be advisable for the solicitors acting for the judgment creditors to apply in each case for a certificate. I hope the Attorney-General will agree with me. If they do not, as I understand it, they will not be able to find out whether the defendant is or is not protected by the Bill, and they will run the risk of doing something which, under the Bill, they will not be entitled to do.
  I am sure that no one wants to see Service men and women harassed and worried by the proceedings which the Bill is designed to prevent happening. We do not want a lot of abortive proceedings to enforce judgment. It is not enough to say, "If you take these steps they will be of no effect"; one wants to see that the steps are not taken or started. It is of such importance that not only the public but the legal profession should be fully informed of the contents of the Bill and its complexities. It is for those reasons that we must really try to see whether we can bring about some simplification to make it easier for people who are affected by the Bill to determine whether or not they come within its protection, and to make it easier for solicitors and others to find out whether a person against whom they are proceeding comes within it or not.
  As far as I can see, the other parts of the Bill are equally, if not more, complicated. Part II gives protection against insecurity of tenure of a place of residence. The provision of the Rent Acts are extended for a limited period to cover classes of property outside and above the normal Rent Acts limit. It is rather interesting to me to note that the Government have made this alteration and extension of the Rent Acts in this Bill, in view of their adamant opposition to the proposal which we put forward from this side, in the course of the debates on the Leasehold Bill, to extend legal protection to tenants, under ground leases, of premises which would otherwise, if they were not held on ground leases, be well within the Rent Restrictions Acts limit. That constructive proposal would have given a great deal of protection, but when we put it forward we met with no success. The Government have now made this extension of the Rent Acts for this limited period.
  1454
  I am very glad indeed that provision has also been made for the protection of the occupant of the tied house and his dependants. We must examine it in detail in Committee. I should be interested to know, in connection with this Part of the Bill, why the Crown are only to be bound by this Part of the Bill if they are the superior landlords and not the immediate landlords. I find it a little difficult to understand, particularly when the right hon. Gentleman in moving the Second Reading said he would give the assurance that the Crown, if they were the immediate landlord, would in every case act as if they were bound by the Bill. If that is so—and I do not doubt it—I am a little puzzled to know why the Crown is expressly excluded from the Bill when the Crown is in the position of the immediate landlord.
  We shall have to consider very carefully in Committee what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to the particular power of public authorities to secure possession of tied houses. He gave the cases of the signalman and the lock-keeper. I am not at all sure that, as it is drafted, the Bill does not go further than that and give a considerable power of eviction to the public authority in the case of the National Coal Board and possibly British Railways a power of eviction which would not be possessed by the ordinary landlord. We shall be able to consider that in Committee and I will not say any more about it now, except that we want to see protection as adequate as possible given to the occupant of a tied house and his dependants, no matter who is the landlord, and I hope that between us, we shall be able to bring that about.
  It is also not uninteresting to note—the right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about this—that although the operation of the Rent Restriction Acts is being extended—and extended to apply also to local authority houses—express provision is also being made to enable the local authorities, in spite of these houses for the first time being brought within the operation of the Rent Restriction Acts, to raise the rents of council houses occupied by the Service men who have been called up, within certain limits, if they so desire to do. Again that is a question which we shall have

  1455
  to discuss in Committee, but it is a point of some importance.
  I do not propose to say much about Part III of the Bill, because if I do, I shall find that many hon. Members will begin to feel cured of any insomnia resulting from last night, but it is curious to me to note that there is a certain degree of overlapping between Part III, which gives protection against insecurity of tenure of business and professional premises, and Part II of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill. We made certain improvements to Part II of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill, such as in the case of the Clause dealing with the determination of rents, and those improvements have not been carried forward into this Bill. I believe that they will be equally applicable.
  I doubt very much if it would be any advantage to the Service man to seek to take action under Part III of this Bill if he can bring himself within Part II of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill—that will be for him to determine—but there is a very great deal to be said for trying to get the codes under Part II of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill and Part III of this Bill as similar as possible, otherwise there will obviously be very great difficulties. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not exclude appeals from the county court to a higher court in the event of disputes because that may be just as much to the advantage of the tenant as it may in some cases to the other side.
  I do not propose at this stage to make any comment on the Parts dealing with superannuation and insurance except to say that we welcome them. There are a great many other points on which I could comment, but I believe they are points which we can more appropriately discuss in Committee, and I hesitate to add to what is, I fear, already becoming a rather lengthy speech, although perhaps it is not so long as the right hon. Gentleman's had to be.
  We support the objects of the Bill entirely. We can almost claim some degree of responsibility for its paternity. We shall do what we can to improve it and to simplify it, and I hope that the
  1456
  Attorney-General will do all he can to bring its provisions before those who practise in the legal professions. If the Bill is to operate as we want to see it operate, it may be desirable to have published at the time it becomes law, some simple text-book which will explain carefully, accurately, and shortly the real effect of its provisions. We wish the Bill well, and we hope that it will be improved before it reaches the Statute Book. With those words, I repeat that we shall not divide against it.
  4.57 p.m.
  Mr. Gooch: I am not a lawyer but just a simple countryman who has tried to understand the Bill.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Not so simple.
  Mr. Gooch: I must confess that I am not really fitted for the job of understanding a Bill of such complexity. I welcome its general provisions, and in doing so I offer my congratulations to my right hon. Friend upon the way in which he has presented it to the House. I welcome the Bill for a very special reason, that it will protect the Service man and his dependants against eviction.
  My interest in this aspect of the Bill goes further than that. I am particularly interested in the protection given by the Bill to Service men living in tied agricultural cottages. Throughout the years these men have never been given protection. Hon. Members know that I have been campaigning against the tied agricultural cottage for the last 30 years, and this is the first move made by any Government to give such men any protection whatever. During the last war farmers secured orders against farm workers living in tied agricultural cottages and these men were evicted. I recall an incident during the last war when a farmer applied for a cottage certificate to the war agricultural executive committee to evict the families of men who were at the time prisoners of war in Singapore. Therefore, I have some grounds for expressing my thanks for the action which is proposed in the Bill.
  It is not generally appreciated that, although agriculture has been enjoying a "blanket" in regard to service in the Forces, a number of farm workers will be affected by the present arrangements. There are farm workers who are Z reservists

  1457
  and will have to serve for a short time, and toward the end of the year the "blanket" will be completely removed from agriculture and farm workers will be called upon to serve. I understand that this Bill will give those men the protection they have been wanting for a long time.
  In addition to giving an assurance to Service men living in tied agricultural cottages who will be called up that their families will not be disurbed while they are serving, I should like to see the procedure carried further by seeing the machinery now used for the ultimate eviction of the tenants of agricultural tied cottages completely at a standstill from now on. The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), will know what I am talking about when I refer to the issue of cottage certificates by county agricultural committees. Before a farmer seeks to evict a farm worker from a tied cottage today, he goes to the agricultural committee to get a certificate——
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If we are to debate the entire system of the issue of certificates by county agricultural executive committees on this Bill, it will cover a wide field and, I think, anticipate a debate which is to take place on the Adjournment Tomorrow on that very subject.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I had not appreciated the point, and I will take note of what the hon. Member says and will call him to order if necessary.
  Mr. Gooch: I was really making the point that in addition to giving the Service man living in a tied cottage an assurance that he will not be disturbed, we should give a measure of assurance that his family will not be disturbed by the procedure which usually takes place before eviction follows. That is done by the farmer going to the county agricultural committee and applying for a certificate to evict the family. Here is a chance to relieve the minds of the families living in these cottages by saying that even the procedure leading up to possible eviction will be stopped for the time being. However, I do not want to embark upon a general discussion of agricultural tied cottages.
  1458
  I shall be ready for that when the opportunity comes and I appreciate what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, that this is the wrong time to talk about it.
  One of the chief reasons for Clause 2 is to relieve the minds of people by ensuring that they will not be disturbed under certain circumstances. That being so, why cannot we relieve the minds of the same people in this way? There should be no possible eviction where the householder or a member of the household, is serving. It ought to be possible to give that assurance, not only where the father of the family is called up, but where the son is called up.
  Now I come to some points of detail which can be debated at a later stage, but on which I should like the Minister to know what is in my mind. Clause 16 (3) excludes agricultural land exceeding two acres in extent from the provisions of subsection (1). In some parts of the country there are men who have such land attached to their service cottages, so that if this part of the Bill goes through, these men will not be afforded any protection whatever.
  Clause 16 (5) implies that where the Crown are the employers, the Bill will not give protection to the Service occupant of the cottage. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to this point and I am with him all the way. I cannot understand why there should be this differentiation. Even where the Crown let the cottage directly, they are under as much obligation to give a man protection for his cottage as a farmer who lets his cottage to the farm worker. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will look at this matter again. If we make this distinction in the case of the Crown, many men working for, say, the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture and living in service cottages will not be subject to the protective Clauses of this Bill, and this would be unfair to the families of such workers. If this assumption is correct, I should like now to offer my objection to it.
  Clause 19 (1) gives as an interpretation of a "dependant," a member of the Service man's family, fully or mainly maintained by him. This is a departure from the Rent Acts, where the tenancy can pass from a husband to the wife without taking away any security of tenure.

  1459
  We may find circumstances existing where not only the Service man himself works for the owner of the cottage, but so does his wife. As many hon. Members will know, this obtains a great deal in agriculture. In fact, often when the farmer engages a man, he engages the whole family, and there are many cases where a wife works on the farm and in the farmhouse too.
  Supposing the wife is working on the farm and is earning £4 a week, are the courts bound to rule that, as she earns enough to keep herself, she is not a dependant and is therefore excluded from the protection of the Bill? I should like the Attorney-General to address himself to this point when he replies. I object to the interpretation of a dependant as a member of the family who is "wholly or mainly maintained" by the Service man and I suggest that protection should be given to any member of the family living in the cottage when the man is called to do his service.
  Clause 21 deals with the position of a man during a short period of training, presumably a Class Z man, and subsection (2) leaves it to the discretion of the court as to whether or not an order for possession of the premises is executed. We should go further, and by statutory authority prevent the person obtaining an order for possession of a service cottage and getting authority to execute the order until the period of training is complete and for a reasonable period thereafter. Subsection (5) gives the same interpretation of a dependant as in Clause 19, but I suggest there is a need to include every class of dependant of a Service man living in his cottage. I conclude by expressing the hope that the Minister will give some thought, as I am sure he will, to the points of detail I have raised. They are worthy of consideration in the interests of a very deserving section of the community. I thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has presented the Bill, to which, in the main, I give my wholehearted support.
  5.10 p.m.
  Brigadier Head: The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), introduced his speech by defining himself as a simple countryman. I am in no way disrespectful when I say that his speech did not convince me that he was
  1460
  an entirely simple countryman. If he is simple, then I begin my speech by saying that I will make my remarks as a moronic militarist.
  I support what, I think, all hon. Members have said about the Bill, that it is warmly welcomed on both sides as something that is required. It seems to have gone very closely into the whole question and to have made a real effort to ensure that all the men concerned have a very wide range of possible hardships and difficulties covered. In my opinion, however, the very width, range and complexity of the Bill might inherently do something to stultify its effectiveness.
  Any hon. Member who has been concerned with questions of war damage and the like will agree that an immense number of mistakes and invalid claims are made because of ignorance of legislation on the subject concerned. My doubt regarding the Bill is whether the men concerned will ever be fully aware of their rights. All the good will and complexity in the Bill will be to no avail unless by some means this information is known to the men to whom it applies.
  In the House, especially with the kind of hon. Members now present upon these benches, we are apt to take it for granted that people know about these things or that they take the trouble to find out. Alternatively, we might say that if they do not take the trouble to find out, their ignorance is their own fault. If the Bill is to be effective, I should like the Service Departments to institute some form of procedure such as, for instance, an introductory talk, by someone with a full understanding of the matter, to all men who arrive for training during their period of call-up, so that they may have a list of the various broad headings under which they have rights, enabling them to make more detailed inquiry in the directions in which they are affected.
  I am very much afraid that if men are merely to be issued with an ordinary kind of pamphlet produced by, say, the Judge Advocate General's Department—for whom, I should say, I have no disrespect—they would not take the trouble to read it, At this early stage, therefore, I make the plea that the whole question of information for the men concerned should be tied up between the Ministry of Labour

  1461
  and the Service Departments. No doubt this point will be further discussed during the Committee stage.
  The Minister of Labour, who explained the Bill with very great clarity and whose explanation certainly was most helpful to me, referred to the question of bachelors. A man who is married and who has dependants, and who is called-up, has his rights under the Bill, but not so the bachelor. I appreciate the validity of his exclusion. I feel rather sorry for the bachelor—I am not one myself—as a person who possibly may get a raw deal. If he finds himself without a house as a result of his call-up, I wonder whether some arrangement could be made to ensure that his local council gives him some kind of priority for housing, as is done for men coming out of the Regular Forces. The bachelor might come up against considerable hardship as a result of the Bill, and he has no rights whatever. Could the Attorney-General explain what happens to a man who is engaged to be married? Is his fiancée a dependant?
  The Attorney-General (Sir Frank Soskice): His fiancée would not yet be a member of his family. A dependant has to be a member of the man's family.
  Brigadier Head: The man who is called up and who is engaged to be married might well lose his house, but he gets no protection under the Bill. I do not know whether there is any way of legislating for this eventuality, which is, after all, a human problem and could cause much irritation to those concerned.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, North, who spoke in such "simple" terms about the Bill, mentioned the question of dependants. With housing conditions as they are, I can foresee difficulties as far as dependants are concerned. Nowadays, a man who is married does not have people in his house only because they are dependent upon him. If he is lucky enough to have a house, he has them with him because they belong to his family. Although they may be working for themselves, it is only the husband or the head of the family who is given protection by the Bill. As a result, it is possible that great hardship may be inflicted upon his relatives. Other hon. Members will know from experience that people do not always live in the same house because they are
  1462
  all dependants who require support, but because the house in which they live is the only roof which the family can get to cover far too many people. This is a matter which will need to be gone into at a later stage; as far as housing is concerned, the old definition of dependants is no longer valid.
  There is some anxiety whether reservists who are called up may become involved in a lot of litigation. Would a man in this position be given free legal advice in questions of litigation, or must he pay for it? When the Attorney-General replies to the debate, I should like him to say whether it is expected that the provisions of the Bill will cause any great amount of litigation. As one who is somewhat ignorant on such matters, I should be reluctant to feel that many of the provisions might cause long, protracted and, possibly, expensive litigation for those whom the Bill is intended to protect. We on this side welcome the Bill, and I hope that it will have a speedy and successful passage through the House.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. John Hay: One of the most moving parts of the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in welcoming the Bill from this side of the House was when he pointed out the grave effects which the Bill will have and the alarm and despondency which it will cause to the legal profession as a whole and to solicitors in particular. I hope that the House will bear with me for a few moments if I look at this admirable Bill from the standpoint of one of those who will have to make it work.
  I do not think there is the slightest doubt in any part of the House that a Bill of this kind is urgently necessary. There is, however, a preliminary question which I wish to ask, because the Minister of Labour did not deal very fully with the point when introducing the Bill. Is there any kind of preliminary estimate of the number of people who will be covered by the provisions of the Bill? According to the Schedule, certain types of reservists and others who are called up for different types of work in connection with the present "near-emergency" are to be covered, and in addition, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), in certain circumstances the dependants of those people

  1463
  will be covered also. It would be a help to the House to know roughly how many people it is thought will be covered by this Bill.
  There is, however, one matter with which I am very concerned. As my hon. and learned Friend said, it will be particularly solicitors who will have to operate this Bill and I am very much afraid that unless we have some clear guidance at a fairly early stage a great deal of difficulty will be experienced and possibly great damage may be done. No one denies the necessity for the Bill; no one in his senses would try to deprive the Service man of adequate protection, but I should like to know at this stage what kind of procedure the Government envisage for working the provisions, particularly of Part I, of the Bill.
  When he introduced the Bill this afternoon, the Minister of Labour dealt with the question of who should have the obligation upon him of taking certain steps to bring the protection of the different Parts of the Bill into effect. He pointed out quite rightly that as far as Parts III and V of the Bill were concerned, it was for the Service man to look out for himself, and bring protection over himself. But the right hon. Gentleman did not deal, as I think he promised he would deal, with what was to happen under Part I. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South pointed out the difficulty in which the litigant may be. If a litigant feels he has the right to take some sort of proceedings against an individual, what kind of provision is there to be to make it clear to that litigant whether his prospective defendant is a Service man?
  What I have in mind particularly is a case where "A" has a claim for money against "B" and "B" is liable to call-up, but that is not something known to everyone. The matter proceeds, "B" enters an appearance and the case goes on, but suddenly "B" is called up for Service. What is then the position of "A"? How will he have known before that stage about the liability of "B" to Service? What is to be done about costs? "A" will have had his action stayed, or, if he has a judgment, he will not be able to enforce it. What is the position of "A"?
  1464
  I want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is envisaged that the rules of court, which obviously will be necessary to provide for proceedings under the Bill, will contain the same sort of provision for service with the original proceedings as were provided under the Courts Emergency Powers Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act a notice was served with the writ notifying the prospective defendant of the protection of the Act. Is that the procedure which the Bill is likely to bring in? If so, it will be a rather cumbersome way of protecting what obviously will be a small number of people. It may mean that a great deal of expense and work will be incurred by solicitors who will not know until they are told by someone, or can find out from some source, whether the people with whom their clients are concerned are people liable to recall.
  It is a very technical point and I hope to have an opportunity of dealing with it more fully in Committee, but I should like to make a preliminary inquiry as to what the procedure is to be. Is it for the person who is himself plaintiff against a Service man to find out whether the defendant is covered by this Bill? I think we are putting a very great deal of difficulty in his way and also in the way of his solicitors. The solicitors have to operate the Bill.
  There seems to be no provision in this Bill corresponding to the kind of legislation we had during the war years known as the Liabilities (War-time Adjustment) Act procedure. That was a form of mechanism which enabled a person who could not pay his debts—not just one judgment but a lot of debts—to be protected against the consequences if in fact, because of his Service in the Forces, he could not meet the obligation. It was a kind of bankruptcy without the stigma of bankruptcy, and many people obtained considerable benefit as a result.
  I do not know whether the provisions of this Bill will be sufficient to cover that sort of individual. If we take the case of a small trader: he is already perhaps in some difficult financial situation in these awkward days and he may suddenly receive a call-up notice and be required to serve for a comparatively long period. Under the Bill he will be protected as

  1465
  far as the tenancy of his shop is concerned and against the enforcement of any judgment against him. But there may be a large number of debts which ought to be paid and the creditors may be pestering him. In normal circumstances, unless he was able to meet them, he would have to go bankrupt. Under those circumstances the Liabilities (War-time Adjustment) Act procedure came into operation. He could go to a liabilities adjustment officer who operated as a sort of temporary receiver for his property and managed the business for him until he was able to stand up to his obligations.
  Is anything of that sort thought necessary in the present situation? Naturally, we do not want to encumber the machine too much and we are legislating for a comparatively small number of individuals, but this is a point which should be looked at. It is not a point which easily can be raised
  in Committee and that is why I am raising it now. If the Government will look at it, perhaps they can introduce a new Clause to meet the situation. We welcome the Bill, for the parentage of which we feel in some measure responsible, and we wish to give it a speedy passage this afternoon. If we can have a few weeks in which to prepare those Amendments which are obviously necessary, we shall be able to ensure a fairly speedy passage through Committee also.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Like the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) I think we require a certain amount of time to digest this very complicated piece of legislation. Perhaps I might put one or two preliminary questions to the Attorney-General. Incidentally, I do not know whether he has been congratulated upon his appointment, but I would certainly embarrass him by giving him my congratulations.
  Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would help us a little by explaining certain questions which arise out of Part II of the Bill which we are told deals with protection against insecurity of tenure of place of residence. Perhaps he could enlighten us exactly on what a "place of residence" means. Does it mean, for example, a barracks? [Laughter.] It is a very relevant question because surely a place of residence can be a barracks, or even a detention barracks. If a barracks
  1466
  is a place of residence, and I submit that a barracks does become a place of residence if people in uniform reside in it, then I want to know how security of tenure is to be given to soldiers who happen to have their only home in a barracks. This is not a theoretical point. I am interested in people who were actually evicted from a barracks.
  I know it may be argued by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) that I am not in favour of their being admitted to the barracks in the first place, but when people are living in a barracks and in a town where there is no other alternative accommodation, the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton is very relevant. I ask the Attorney-General what is to be done to protect soldiers, who have been in the Army for 20 years, from eviction from the barracks which happens to be their place of residence. I again would put the point
  which I have put before to the House. In the garrison town which is in my constituency and in the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), there was a very regrettable incident when soldiers' families were evicted from a barracks and had no alternative accommodation.
  I wish to know if this Bill gives any sort of remedy to families who are evicted from a barracks; what sort of protection they will have and whether action will be taken against the people who own the barracks. If so, shall we have the Attorney-General taking action against the Secretary of State for War? I hope he will, because surely it will be rather anomalous if we are prepared to take action against the proprietor of a house but are not prepared to take similar action against the Secretary of State for War. It may even be, and I hope it will be, that the Secretary of State for War may land in the Old Bailey. I hope that if that happens, the jury will convict him.
  I wish to return to the case of the injustice done to the families of soldiers because they cannot get alternative accommodation. In the town of Ayr we had four families evicted from a barracks, and they were living in tents for many weeks during some of the worst weather we have ever had in Scotland. There was considerable indignation as a result of this state of affairs. I think we are entitled,

  1467
  if we are considering the question of the tenure of a place of residence, to ask that some action be taken to protect the ex-soldier and his family who are evicted from a barracks. The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton referred to the fact that local authorities allowed certain housing accommodation for ex-soldiers, but I am afraid he is mistaken so far as Scotland is concerned.
  Brigadier Head: I did not say they allowed housing accommodation. What I said was that in the case of a Regular Service man who is leaving the Service, a certain number of points is allowed to him with regard to priority.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that that does not apply universally in Scotland. Very often an ex-soldier and his wife and family find themselves at a great disadvantage by having to take their place in a long housing queue. It is a very difficult and complicated matter for the local authority. I suggest that if the purpose of Part II of the Bill is to give protection and security of tenure of the place of residence, there should be some provision for ex-soldiers who, after 20, 25, or 30 years' service, find they have no home to go to. Although the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton and I disagree as to matters of military and strategic policy, I am sure we are united in that we want the best human treatment for the man who has been in the Services all his life. I hope that on the Committee stage we shall be able to get some satisfactory assurance that provision will be made for the proper treatment of ex-soldiers and their families; and that those people shall be given legal protection.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I know well the optimism of the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but I think that that optimism will be over-exerted in the hope that he has just expressed. Whatever may be the merits of the proposals he has made, they would seem to have remarkably little to do with a Bill which deals expressly and solely with reservists and auxiliary forces.
  Having said that, I would like to say how much I agree with the hon. Member
  1468
  on one point, that is in offering congratulations—which I think all of us would like to offer—to the Attorney-General on what most of us feel was his thoroughly well-deserved promotion. Perhaps I am particularly in a position to express that, because the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames has a very peculiar and special relationship with the Law Officers of the Crown, and may I also inform the Attorney-General that I have a personal predeliction in favour of the preferment of Balliol men?
  It must be a very agreeable experience, both for the right hon. and learned Gentleman and for his right hon. Friend, that their maiden trip in their respective new offices should be made in charge of a Bill which commands, not only the support of His Majesty's Opposition, but, what is apparently rarer in the case of a Government Bill in these days, of the supporters of His Majesty's Government. That fact is more remarkable when hon. Members contemplate the name that appears first on the back of the Bill.
  This Bill seems a complex attempt to do the right thing, and I was much struck by what the Minister of Labour said in moving the Second Reading, to the effect that there was here a balance of conflicting interest. That is manifestly so, but I hope that during the later stages of the Bill, where that balance appears to raise difficulties, the House will proceed on the basis of coming down, where there is doubt at all, on the side of the serving man as against the other parties. I say that for this particular reason.
  We are in a very peculiar position at the moment, in as much as the overwhelming majority of us are, with all the blessings of Socialist rule, living our ordinary lives, while a very small majority of us, to a good many of whom this Bill directly applies, are facing all the horrors, tension and strain of modern war. When we are in that peculiar position of an overwhelming majority of citizens of this country living their normal lives while a small minority are exposed to all the experiences of modern war, it seems right that if there is any doubt whatever as between the balance of conflicting interests that doubt should be resolved in favour of imposing the unfairness—if there must be unfairness—on the other party and not on the Service man.

  1469
  I should like to ask a question which arises from something which was said by the Minister of Labour in moving the Second Reading. He gave what seemed to me a very satisfactory assurance as to the attitude of Government Departments to the making up of the pay of Government servants called up in the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces, and he expressed the hope, which I respectfully support, that private employers would do the same. It would complete the picture if the Attorney-General, when he replies to the debate, could say whether similar steps have been taken to suggest similar action in the case of those great industries which under nationalisation, or to use the Foreign Secretary's phrase, "socialisation," the Government directly control. I hope that we can be given an assurance in that respect, because certainly one of them until quite recently has not acted up to the standards of the Minister of Labour's appeal.
  Another issue which seems to arise was touched upon by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), which seems to me to constitute the only substantial blemish upon the Bill. That is the fact that the protection given to the families of serving men against eviction from their homes is very much diminished where the landlord happens to be some form of public authority. I am bound to say that I find it very difficult in principle to see why, for example, in the case of a Service tenant a high degree of protection should be given where the tied cottage belongs to a private individual or a public company and a very much smaller degree of protection should be given where the landlord happens to be some kind of public authority.
  This is not indeed as small a matter as the speech of the Minister of Labour may have led one to believe. For example, in Clause 18, the protection given to the tenant is very substantially reduced where
  "the landlord is a body who are a local authority (as defined in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947), statutory undertakers (as so defined) or a development corporation (as defined in the New Towns Act, 1946).…"
  There may be an argument, into which I do not propose to enter, in the case of a local authority. I do not see any argument at all in the case of a new town corporation and why it should be put in a special category.
  1470
  The width of the other exception—the statutory undertaker—can be appreciated only when hon. Members refer to the definition of that term, to which reference is made in the Bill now before us. The definition is that of the Town and Country Planning Act, and in order that hon. Members shall appreciate the width of the exception I will quote the definition.
  "'Statutory undertakers' mean persons authorised by any enactment to carry on any railway, light railway, tramway, road transport, water transport, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, pier or lighthouse undertaking, or any undertaking for the supply of electricity, gas, hydraulic power or water,…"
  That is a very wide exception. I cannot believe it to be essential in the public interest to make that exception for that one sphere of industrial and commercial activity, whereas it is thought, in my view rightly, that it is not necessary to do so in respect of the remaining industrial, commercial and agricultural activities of the country.
  I hope that when we come to the Committee stage it may be possible to introduce some diminution of that exception into the Bill. I mention the matter at this stage because I think it might be of assistance in arriving at some reasonable compromise on the matter if this issue were brought at once to the notice of the Government Front Bench so that they may have the opportunity of considering what attitude to adopt on what is admittedly a complex question, and in which also that balance of considerations to which the Minister of Labour referred undoubtedly arises.
  Many of my hon. Friends particularly welcome this Bill because it embodies in legislative form suggestions which some of us made in the debate on the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Bill on 22nd November last. In particular, it contains those provisions with respect to the superannuation schemes of local authorities and those provisions relating to the tied cottage situation—to which I referred in another context—which were put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low) and myself. We were
  told then, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, in words which my hon. and learned Friend has quoted, that nothing could be done about it. I am glad that the resources

  1471
  of the Parliamentary Secretary's Department have proved to be less inadequate than he at that time thought, and that what was then said to be impracticable is now brought forward in the language of the Government Bill.
  I say that with complete sincerity, because it seemed to me on 22nd November that the provisions to protect those who are bearing the peculiar and special burden of service were inadequate without some such provisions. I respectfully congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department on having overcome the admittedly grave drafting difficulties in dealing with that matter. That is the spirit in which I approach this Measure. I am certain that it is intended to do good, and I am sure that in many ways it will do good. But it is equally beyond controversy that so complex a Measure will undoubtedly reveal some difficulties when submitted to the close analysis which it is the duty of hon. Members to give it during its Committee stage.
  We wish the Bill well. It could hardly have been brought forward at a more appropriate moment than this, when the minds of most of us in this House and in the country are so deeply concerned by the heavy and grave events which have fallen upon those of our fellow countrymen who are fighting in Korea at present.
  5.48 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Frank Soskice): May I at the outset express my warm sense of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for their very kindly references to myself, which I greatly appreciate.
  This Bill is, I entirely agree, extremely complicated. I agree still more that if we can possibly simplify it we certainly ought to do so during the Committee stage. The Government will listen very sympathetically to any proposals which may have that effect which may be advanced from any quarter of the House. But having been personally closely associated with the preparation of the Bill, I can assure the House that we have already tried very hard to make it simpler and we have not really got beyond what
  1472
  has been produced and what is before the House today.
  As the hon. and gallant Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said, this is certainly a Bill which requires and calls for full examination in Committee. The whole House is agreed upon the principle of it, but I think that the whole House is also agreed that the detail of it requires a great deal of further consideration. I repeat that when the Bill is examined in Committee, any proposals that are forthcoming to improve it will be most sympathetically and gratefully received by those who speak for the Government.
  After listening to the speeches today, I might in reply perhaps try to group the points which have been made into one or two broad categories. I am sure that it would not be appropriate, nor would the House wish it, for me to anticipate now the Committee stage debates, but one or two broad matters of principle have been raised to which I might refer.
  The first which was raised was the important point that a creditor or the legal adviser to a creditor may find himself in great difficulty in determining whether or not he requires the consent of the court to take further steps to enforce any judgment that may have been obtained. Frankly we recognise that it is a very serious difficulty. We had hoped to meet it by the provision which we have made in Clause 48 for the furnishing of certificates. Whether that will in practice go the whole way to meet the difficulty I am not sure. What it is hoped will eventuate is that anybody who can satisfy any of the Service authorities that he is interested in proceedings either as a defendant in them or as a person wishing to enforce relief which has been awarded to him by the court, or the legal adviser of such a person, will be furnished with a certificate.
  One hon. Member asked how long it would take. It is most important, when one is contemplating proceedings, that it should not take long. It is difficult to know exactly what the volume of applications may be, but we apprehend and hope that it should be possible to furnish the certificate at all events within a week of it being asked for. Perhaps that is a hope that will be falsified, but it is what is hoped.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: It would be helpful if the Attorney-General could indicate now what he has in mind as to the machinery for obtaining the certificate. Where is the request to be made?
  The Attorney-General: I shall come to that point in a moment. I was first going to say that in order to make it possible to furnish certificates which
  will be reliable and of real use in any proceedings which are contemplated the certificate will be of an affirmative rather than a negative character. By that I mean that it will state that so and so is doing or has done this or the other service but it will not state that such and such a person has not been engaged in service in His Majesty's Forces. It would involve a great deal more inquiry and research to provide certificates in negative form rather than in positive form. I think that is evident. If one has reasonable particulars identifying an individual one can furnish a positive certificate, but if one is asked to inquire of all the Service Departments in which that person may have rendered service in order to be able to say that he has not served in any of them room for error creeps in, and it becomes necessary to carry out a much wider range of research to furnish negative certificates.
  The question is asked, where one will have to apply for the certificate? The administrative arrangements will be worked out but I can say that the Service man will get a leaflet in language that will be simple—if I may assure the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), it will be as simple as possible—which will state his rights. It will tell him to whom he has to go if he wishes for information and it will afterwards tell him where he is to go or where any of his dependants are to go if they need any of these certificates. He will be encouraged not to take the leaflet with him but to leave it behind with his family so that reference to the leaflet can be made by his dependants in his absence should need arise.
  That will, it is hoped, adequately safeguard the Service man. It does not necessarily furnish the same protection for the opposite party as for the person who claims relief. We are trying to devise such arrangement as we can to make the information as public and as easily accessible
  1474
  as possible to all concerned. I do not think that I can go further than that now. It is a matter which can be more fully probed during the Committee stage.
  Mr. Hay: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman really saying that if a litigant wishes to enforce the judgment which he has obtained against an individual who may or may not be a Service man, it is incumbent upon the litigant or his advisers to make a search for a certificate? Does that mean that in almost every case, before the litigant can proceed with any prospect of safety, his solicitors will have to apply for a certificate or find out whether a person is serving. Will it not make it an extremely cumbersome system which will encourage a large number of applications?
  The Attorney-General: I agree with a lot of what the hon. Gentleman says. If we can think of a more effective system, we shall do our best to implement it. We hope that it will not work out so badly as might have been implied by what has been said. Generally speaking, but not always, in the ordinary course of litigation both parties know a certain amount about each other. If there is reason to suppose that service considerations may be present, the plaintiff can ask for a certificate. We shall have to see how this system works out, and we shall consider any proposal which might work better. It is an important and difficult point.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: It is an important and difficult point, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not mind if I interrupt. I am considering a case falling within Clause 2, of someone who has already obtained judgment seeking to enforce that judgment.
  The Attorney-General: Under Part I.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: A person who has done that may be completely unaware of the obligations which fall upon the defendant—the man against whom judgment has been filed. If he is to comply with this Bill, that judgment creditor must find out whether or not the judgment debtor is liable to serve. If he applies for a certificate, I gather that he can only get one if the man is serving or has served; he will not get what has been called a negative certificate. Unless the

  1475
  judgment creditor can get a negative certificate to say that there is no liability, the liability may arise in the future; and there will be no safeguard to ensure that the judgment creditor can comply with the Bill. Is not that the position?
  The Attorney-General: That is a difficulty which is inherent in the situation. During the war one operated the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, and the difficulty did not arise so much because that was applicable to the whole population. One knew without having to make inquiry that the protection afforded by that Act was applicable to everybody. Here we are protecting a far more limited class of persons. I am sure that everyone will agree that it would be completely pointless and a waste of time and money to try to produce a system like that in the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act which applied to everybody. Once we are faced with a situation where it applies to a limited number, the difficulty immediately arises.
  I hope that in cases under Part I the two litigants will know a certain amount about one another. It should be possible as a matter of practice for the plaintiff to inform himself without too much difficulty. But we shall listen sympathetically to any proposal whereby administratively the matter could be improved. Indeed, we would be willing to change the provisions of the Bill with that end in view. However, we feel that it cannot really take any other form. Having regard to the material with which it has to deal, it is difficult to devise any better system.
  I pass from that point to deal with other matters of principle. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) referred to the Liabilities (War-Time Adjustment) Acts. We certainly considered that carefully, but we rejected it. Our experience of the administration of those Acts was that it was not always the most deserving person who benefited by their provisions. Very often it was the case that the individual who really was not deserving of protection, who really was not trying to face up to his liabilities, got much more advantage from the application of the provisions of those Acts than a man who was doing his best to face the difficulties in which he found himself. We have taken the view partly for the reason I have indicated that, it did not really work well, and
  1476
  partly also because, having regard to the situation, we do not think that their very drastic provisions are necessary. We remain content with the rather more limited form of protection in this Bill.
  Several hon. Members on both sides of the House were concerned with the position of the service tenant. First, may I say that the National Coal Board is not included within the definition of a statutory undertaker contained in Clause 18 (3). As the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames pointed out, the definition of a statutory undertaker is borrowed from the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and it does not include the National Coal Board. Some hon. Members on both sides were apprehensive that perhaps it went too far, as it stood already, in not including the National Coal Board. I hope that hon. Members will not think that that is the case. The kind of situation that one envisages is a situation in which there is a service tenant of a house, or a service licensee of a house, and there is an urgent public need to use the house or cottage in which he is living.
  The case has been mentioned of the lock-keeper. That is one example. One could give a number of examples where the public interest has to be balanced against the private interest of the person who is a service licensee or tenant of a house. In the circumstances, it was felt that it really was necessary that it should be possible for the public interest to prevail. I reassure hon. Members, particularly on this side of the House, that the fact that we have made it possible, where the public interest requires it, to terminate a tenancy or licence of a service tenant, does not mean that he is bound to lose his cottage.
  The court will only evict him if it is established that it is reasonable so to do. Without the provisions of Clause 18 (3) it would not be possible to get him out unless alternative accommodation were shown to be in existence. The test is that the court must think in the circumstances that it is reasonable to turn him out; and no doubt, in deciding whether it was reasonable, the court would balance the public requirement—what public interest demanded—against the circumstances in which a man found himself.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does that mean that the commanding officer of a barracks

  1477
  would have to go before a court before he could evict an ex-soldier who was living in married quarters in the barracks?
  The Attorney-General: I think that my hon. Friend is a little too apprehensive about married quarters in Army camps or establishments. The Bill does not cover Regular serving soldiers. It is Regular serving soldiers who are usually found to be the occupants of married quarters in barracks. The categories of Service personnel dealt with in this Bill would not, except possibly on rare occasions, include the occupants who live in married quarters in barracks or Army camps with their families. I do not think that the point raised has any practical or real application in the circumstances.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Attorney-General say why the considerations to which he has referred are coterminous with the definition of a statutory undertaking? Surely the factors he has raised are as material in the case of, say, engineering or munition factories as they are in the case of railways and canals.
  The Attorney-General: If we have wrongly limited the area, that is a matter we can put right in Committee. I commend the principle which is that we may have a situation where a person is living in a cottage when there is an urgent public need that some other person should be substituted for him. If that is the case, then the court is given the right to say whether it is reasonable that that person should be evicted from the cottage or not. That is the situation. If we have wrongly drawn the limit to which that principle can apply, we will reconsider it and change it in Committee. For the time being, we have felt it right to borrow the definition from the Town and Country Planning Act. It is a matter to which no doubt hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will give further attention later during the course of this Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), was concerned with the position of families, particularly the fathers of Service men. He referred also to the wives. We have drawn the Bill upon the assumption that protection shall exist in the case of residential premises only, where it can be said that the Service man was living in the premises and that he had some member of his
  1478
  family dependent upon him, either wholly or mainly. The premises need not be premises of which he is the tenant. The tenant may be the dependant. The tenant may be a father of the Service man who has been called up for service. It is considered necessary that there should be an element of dependence and that the member of the family in question should be wholly or mainly dependent.
  With regard to the wife, it would be a question of fact whether she was wholly or mainly dependent. In a great many households I should have thought that even if she was also earning something, the fact could be proved that she was, at any rate, mainly dependent upon the Service man who was her husband and who in fact supported her. It is a matter of fact, and the court would have to consider the situation in any case. The certificate of the County Agricultural Executive Committee under the provisions of this Bill certainly is not a circumstance which dispenses with the necessity of providing alternative accommodation. My hon. Friend has indicated that he is satisfied with the provisions of the Bill in that respect. This Bill has a limited objective. It deals only with Service personnel of certain categories. Although it is permanent, I do not think it could be contemplated as within the scope of this Bill to do in general terms what my hon. Friend would have wished that it should do.
  In commending this Bill to the House, I have sought, I hope not unsuccessfully, to treat with the general issues of principle
  which emerge from the arguments which have been put forward. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not think that any general issues of principle remain to be dealt with. Of matters of detail, there are legion, and there are bound to be in a Bill of this complication which is some 51 pages long. I hope that the House will think that it is sufficiently acquainted with the general purposes of the Bill, and that it is sufficiently in agreement with the way in which the Bill seeks to set out those purposes, to agree that it should be given a Second Reading.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, could he reply to the request which I made to him to amplify what the Minister

  1479
  of Labour has said as to making up the pay of reservists recalled, in reference to the nationalised industries?
  The Attorney-General: I am afraid that I have no further information than that given by my right hon. Friend, who referred to Government Departments and also to private employers. In the case of local authorities, the matter is under consideration, but I have not any decision to announce. In the case of the nationalised industries, I am in a position to tell the House that, whatever decision they may take on the point, no legislation would be required, and it would not, in any case, be feasible, within the provisions of this Bill, to deal with that particular topic by way of any legislative enactment. It is a matter for them, and I can only answer the question which the hon. Gentleman asked me by saying that I have not any decision which I am able to report.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that he is making, or will make, efforts to secure that they will follow the example already set? Will he do that? Perhaps the Minister of Labour will say that he will make inquiries and use his influence to see that they follow the example set?
  The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman wants assurances and so on, but it must be left to the bodies concerned, and, no doubt, in due course, they will consider it and decide what is proper in the circumstances.
  Mr. George Thomas: May I ask a question about the protection of superannuation rights under Clause 37? Am I to understand that the Exchequer will make up the full superannuation contribution? Will it fall to the local authorities? This may be a Committee point, and perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will tell me if it is. Will it fall to the local authorities, or, in the case of teachers, will the teacher concerned have to make his contribution? This will have an important bearing on the question whether the pay is made up or not.
  The Attorney-General: That would be for the local authorities to decide, but what the effect of that might be on their
  1480
  block grant is another matter, which would have to be taken into account.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Standing Committee.

  RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES (PROTECTION OF CIVIL INTERESTS) [MONEY]
  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 consequentially affected, in respect of civil rights and liabilities of theirs, it is expedient—
  A. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable under any other enactment which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session—
  (i) (a) bringing service of any description specified in that behalf in the said Act of the present Session within the application of the provisions of section one of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1948, as to compulsory national service as defined in that Act, subject to provision for securing that, where a person undertakes service of such a description, the same period shall not be reckoned both for the purposes of benefits payable to or in respect of him by virtue of that section and also for the purposes of naval, military or air force service retired pay, service pension or service gratuity;
  (b) authorising the computation of benefits payable by virtue of that section to or in respect of a person performing a period of service of such a description on the basis of his having received during that period the remuneration which he would have received in what was his employment immediately before undertaking it;
  (c) extending the provisions of that section as to entrants to the permanent Civil Service after such examination as is therein mentioned who performed compulsory national service as therein defined before entering the permanent Civil Service to entrants thereto who perform service of such a description as aforesaid before entering it and are persons who have been nominated for appointment or are entrants after examination other than such as is mentioned in that section;
  (ii) enabling the Firemen's Pension Scheme brought into operation under section twenty-six of the Fire Services Act, 1947, to include provision for treating employment during service of such a description as aforesaid and any further period as employment as a member of a fire brigade;
  (iii) bringing service of such a description as aforesaid within the operation of the provisions of subsection (2) of section one of the Police Pensions Act, 1948, as to compulsory national service as defined in that Act;
  (iv) authorising the giving effect to any such provision as aforesaid of the said Act of the present Session, or to the said provisions of the Police Pensions Act, 1948, as from the fifteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty.
  B. To authorise payment into the Exchequer of any increase attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session in the sums required under any other enactment to be so paid.—[Mr. Robens.]
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  UTILITY APPAREL (MAXIMUM PRICES)
  6.14 p.m.
  Squadron Leader Burden: I beg to move,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 16th April, 1951, entitled the Utility Apparel (Maximum Prices and Charges) (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 649), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th April, be annulled."
  This Order, No. 649, is in fact, a follow-up of Statutory Instrument No. 413, which Mr. Speaker ruled to have been improperly laid on 19th April last. This alone is a sufficient reason for the Opposition to keep a watchful eye on the Instrument against which we are now praying, and, indeed, it is made more apparent by the fact that this particular Instrument has necessitated the printing of a corrigendum, which states that the Order was made on the 16th April, was laid before Parliament on the 20th April, and was due to come into operation on the 23rd April. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends will have some very pungent remarks to make about this.
  In fact, the whole record of the Board of Trade with regard to the laying of these Statutory Instruments has been a record of muddle and chaos. Statutory Instrument No. 413, against which I put down
  1482
  the Motion which Mr. Speaker ruled was out of order, was, in fact, intended to replace Statutory Instrument 216, against which a Prayer was moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) on 3rd April.
  The gravamen of the complaint of my hon. and gallant Friend was the delay in the publication of the Order, which created immense difficulties among the traders to whom it applied. I would remind the House that this was also referred to in the observations of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, who, in their third Report to the House, said:
  "Your Committee are of the opinion that the special attention of the House should be drawn to them"—
  that is, to four Orders, which included Statutory Instrument No. 216. The Report went on:
  "on the grounds that there appears to have been an unjustifiable delay in their publication."
  The Select Committee took a serious view of the delay.
  The Order was made on 9th February, and it was not published until 22nd February, a delay of 13 days. It was indeed strange that part of the complaint that I intended to raise against Order No. 413 was on the basis of the delay in publication, and the disclosures of the delay, as brought to the notice of the House in the Third Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, would have made it perfectly clear to the Board of Trade that they should have taken considerably more care in future. One would have thought that the President of the Board of Trade would have learned the lesson, and would have ensured, at least, that he was avoiding the same criticism against the next Order, particularly in view of the fact that it was merely a follow-up Order.
  A copy of the second Order, No. 413, was placed in the Library on 13th March, it was printed on 27th March and came into operation, or was due to come into operation, on 29th March. Let us assume that the Order was posted on the day on which it was printed. It might then have arrived and been delivered in Birmingham on the 28th or 29th, but it is quite certain that it could never have reached the remote parts of the United

  1483
  Kingdom, where it had to apply just as much in London and other places which it could reach. It was, in fact, printed on the 27th, and it is absolutely certain that it could not have reached——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is talking about an Order that is not before us.
  Squadron Leader Burden: I am referring in passing to Order 413, and, in fact, to Order 216 which is the principal Order. Surely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am entitled to refer to it on that basis.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Well, only very shortly. The whole point is that we are only dealing with the one Order.
  Squadron Leader Burden: What I really wanted to bring to the attention of the House was that, in regard to this next Order, the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments raised the same complaint. They specifically asked that the delay should be brought to the notice of the House. The House is grateful to Mr. Speaker for raising another point, which was that the Order which, in fact, necessitated the laying of this present Order, had been incorrectly laid. I am making the point that I hope that due note will be taken of these delays which were brought to the notice of the House by the Select Committee.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member's speech is all about another Order which is not before us. I must ask him to keep to the Order before the House.
  Squadron Leader Burden: I will now pass from that point and come to the present Order which brings in two new Schedules, Schedule No. 5H and the related Schedule No. 1L, and, in fact, includes Schedules No. 3J and No. 4L to which I intend to confine my remarks at this stage. The related Schedule No. 3J refers to
  "Women's and maids' outerwear (other than knitted apparel and gloves),"
  and No. 4L refers to
  "Women's and maids' underwear and night-wear (other than knitted apparel)."
  Both these Schedules cover a range of garments made from textiles described as wool, animal fibre, rayon cloths, cotton
  1484
  cloths, and linen cloths in various forms. Questions have been asked in this House over quite a considerable period of time regarding the use of the term "wool." The fact that the matter has been so constantly brought to the notice of the President of the Board of Trade shows that there are many hon. Members, and, indeed, many members of the public and also traders who are very dissatisfied with the manner in which it
  has been used by the Government in these Statutory Instruments. Reputable traders resent the loose description of "woollen," and I have no doubt that if the public, too, could be made aware of what the word "woollen" hides in these Instruments, they would be very shocked.
  I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is smiling. I hope it is a smile with me, because for quite a considerable time I have had the impression that he himself is far from satisfied. It may well be that now we have had a change at the Board of Trade we shall also have a change in these definitions, and that they will, in fact, be much more descriptive of the things to which they apply than they have been in the past.
  A most extraordinary situation arose on 10th February, 1949. In answer to a Question in this House, the President of the Board of Trade said:
  "Woven wool cloth is material containing more than 15 per cent. by weight of wool or animal fibre."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 510.]
  With only 15 per cent. of wool in it, the cloth could be described as woollen. But on 24th March, 1949, the President of the Board of Trade said:
  "In consequence of representations received from various quarters in the past few years that the term 'wool cloth' should not be used in Statutory Instruments to refer to any cloth containing more than 15 per cent. of wool, we undertook that, as and when these Statutory Instruments were reviewed, they should be amended to avoid defining the term in a way which might prejudice its interpretation as a trade description."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 46.]
  We have thus arrived at the position that, whereas on 10th February, 1949, woven wool cloth was described by the President of the Board of Trade as material containing more than 15 per cent. of wool or animal fibre, just over a month later, the same right hon. Gentleman defined it as a cloth containing not more than 15 per cent. of wool or animal fibre. Therefore,

  1485
  we arrived at a situation where, in fact, the President of the Board of Trade had described as wool, cloth that need contain no wool at all. Surely, that is completely ridiculous.
  Of course, it may be argued by the Parliamentary Secretary that that was a mistake on the part of the President of the Board of Trade. But, surely, the President of the Board of Trade reads the OFFICIAL REPORT, and, even if he does not read it thoroughly, someone in his Department reads it. I think this House is getting rather tired of the fact that not one but many mistakes on the part of Ministers are never recognised until they are brought to their notice on the Floor of the House. It may be remembered that some time ago my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) made some very cogent remarks regarding the duty of Ministers in rectifying any inaccuracies of which they may have been guilty. I believe that not only is this House, but also the country becoming rather tired of the inaccuracies that come to light.
  If the President of the Board of Trade was not making a mistake, and if his argument was correct, might we not also assume that a rayon cloth need contain no rayon at all, or a cotton cloth no cotton? Indeed, I think we could equally logically claim that, if a cloth could be described as a wool cloth when it need contain only 15 per cent. of wool and 85 per cent. of rayon and/or cotton, a rayon cloth might well contain only 15 per cent. of rayon and 85 per cent. of wool and still be described as a rayon cloth. But, of course, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that the fact that a cloth might be described as woollen when it contains only a very small quantity of wool—and would, in fact, be attractive to the public and cause them to believe that they were getting something far better than they really were getting—there is no inducement to reverse that argument in the case of other cloths. The reason why it would not be used in the case of rayon or cotton is because the inclusion of wool would improve the quality.
  In fact, if there was a large quantity of wool in a rayon or cotton material it would be made evident to the public on those grounds. The very reason why when rayon and cotton are used in large
  1486
  quantities in a cloth described as wool, the fact is hidden, is that they debase the quality and the public would resist buying such merchandise. If these qualities of cloth are to be debased by the infusion of large quantities of vegetable or animal fibre such as rayon or cotton, then at least the public should be made aware of that fact by the goods being labelled.
  I submit that the President of the Board of Trade has not only condoned these actions in the past but has encouraged them. Does the Parliamentary Secretary think it right and proper to describe as wool cloth a cloth which in fact contains only 15 per cent. wool and might contain as much as 85 per cent. rayon or cotton?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Rhodes): No, we do not.
  Squadron Leader Burden: If that is the case, why do you so describe such cloths? Why are they described as wool and animal fibre when the Parliamentary Secretary knows full well that animal fibre is neither cotton nor rayon; one is vegetable fibre and the other manufactured fibre? He knows that animal fibres are fibres from the camel, the llama and vicuna—from the back of the animal.
  Mr. Rhodes: And the cow.
  Squadron Leader Burden: I am very glad the hon. Gentleman admits that his Department have been wrong in this and I hope we can take encouragement from this admission and from the fact that there has recently been a change at the Board of Trade, so that we now have a legal mind there which may pay greater attention to the descriptive matter that comes out of the Department than was paid before. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), makes queer noises, but does he contend that the public have not been "led up the garden" and if not, does he wish them to continue to be so led?
  Mr. Daines: I was waiting for the hon. and gallant Member to say something to the point and I am still waiting.
  Squadron Leader Burden: If the hon. Gentleman says he is still waiting it is

  1487
  quite obvious he has not listened very much, because his hon. Friend on the Front Bench has admitted only a few seconds ago that there was a very strong argument. He agreed with the argument put forward and admitted that the Board of Trade were quite wrong, so I suggest the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) is blinding himself to the true facts of the case. I suggest he listens more carefully. I submit that the Board of Trade, in these descriptions, have been perpetrating a gigantic fraud on the public. I hope that at the end of this debate we shall have from the Parmentary Secretary an undertaking that this will not be done in future. Let us see what the retail trade regard as a description of wool. They say:
  "…in general, the expressions 'woollen' and 'worsted' have a quality significance based on the desirable characteristics of wool from which both types of cloth were traditionally made. Therefore, in retailing, the two expressions indicate a minimum wool content of 90 per cent."
  Mr. Daines: Could the hon. and gallant Member read the last passage again so that I can follow it clearly?
  Squadron Leader Burden: Certainly. It says:
  "To the public and to the retail trade in general the expressions 'woollen' and 'worsted' have a quality significance based on the desirable characteristics of wool, from which both types of cloth were traditionally made.…"—
  and in case the hon. Gentleman does not follow, "both types" refers to the fact that woollen and worsted were traditionally made—
  "Therefore, in retailing, the two expressions…"—
  that is "worsted" and "wool"—
  "indicate that the cloth contains a minimum wool content of 90 per cent.…"
  I hope that is clear to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Daines: I am very much obliged.
  Squadron Leader Burden: Indeed, in a booklet on standards of retail practice produced by the Retail Standards Association—and the hon. Member for East Ham, North, might perhaps again be interested because here there is a little further definition—there is the following:
  "The word 'wool' should not be used in descriptions without qualification unless the
  1488
  material so described contains a minimum of 90 per cent. of wool by weight, the remaining 10 per cent. being accounted for as follows:…"—
  and the hon. Member for East Ham, North, probably does not follow this because it is technical, but his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary certainly does—
  "No more than 3 per cent. in respect of manufacturers' tolerance; 7 per cent. for material other than wool used for adornment and for no other purpose."
  These standards of retail practice are based throughout on the underlying principle that——
  Mr. Rhodes: Would not the hon. and gallant Member agree that that standard trade practice could be upset in the event of a guarantee being given by a manufacturer that the content of the cloth was a certain percentage of wool?
  Squadron Leader Burden: Certainly provided it is made known to the public that that is so. That is the whole point. The public are not told what is the percentage of wool and the Parliamentary Secretary knows full well that that is my whole quarrel with the Department. If there is a great infusion of fibre other than wool or animal fibre into a cloth described as wool it should be acknowledged so that the public know what they are buying. They are based on the underlying principle that,
  "an announcement or practice is inaccurate or misleading if, intentionally or otherwise, it may lead members of the public reasonably to believe that merchandise in general, or any specific article, is more desirable than is actually the case, whether by reason of lower price, higher quality, greater suitability for a purpose, or in any other way."
  I have no hesitation whatever in asserting that the great majority of manufacturers and the reputable retailers use the term "wool cloth" to apply to a textile which contains 90 per cent. wool. The Parliamentary Secretary agrees, which makes it all the more important that these descriptions, as indicated in the related Schedule 3J, should be changed in future. In fact, I take considerable encouragement from the amount of agreement I am receiving on this point. Hon. Gentlemen opposite so often rise to the support of the consumers and tell us so often that the consumers are in the forefront of their thoughts that surely they can take no exception to the fact that we are

  1489
  asking for these changes to be made to protect the consumers. To the general public the term "wool" means what it says—cloth made from wool, apart from the small trimmings and decorations.
  Is it not a fact that representations have been made to the Board of Trade on this matter by many interested bodies? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will answer that question when he replies to the debate. On 13th December last in this House my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner) protested in these terms:
  "…time after time, Board of Trade regulations and schedules have referred to 'wool' and 'wool cloths' in relation to materials which have contained an extraordinarily small percentage of wool."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 1292.]
  In that way the Board of Trade is encouraging traders to deceive their customers on what the cloth really contains. We have the Board of Trade making threats about action to be taken against traders for any irregularities, but the people of the Board of Trade are themselves very much to blame.
  Mr. Speaker: This is a very complicated matter. I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now discussing column (a) dealing with the type of cloth. That, of course, is not discussable under the Order.
  Squadron Leader Burden: I am referring to the articles described in the related Schedule 3J which are described as "garments being made of wool and animal fibre." I am pointing out that the cloth from which many of these garments are made contains only 15 per cent. wool.
  Mr. Speaker: That has all been passed by the House. The whole of column (a) has been passed by the House and is not discussable now.
  Squadron Leader Burden: I must, of course, bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. But I am surely entitled to discuss the fact that included in the Schedule 3J are some cloths which have not appeared in any previous schedule. This is the first time upon which they have appeared. Those new cloths are denoted by an asterisk and I think if you refer to the schedules you will find there are some new cloths.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that in column (b) those numbers which are marked "A" are new and therefore are discussable. But those which are not so marked are not discussable.
  Squadron Leader Burden: My general argument applies to some of the new cloths as well because they suffer from the same frailties as those which have already been introduced, except that in many cases they are even worse than their predecessors because of the debasement made to hide the rise in prices.
  Mr. Rhodes: On a point of order. May I clear this up? The description in the Order "wool and animal fibre" is merely a description which goes back into the Wool and Animal Fibre Cloth Order—and that is a totally different Order altogether. In my submission it does not matter whether new cloths are added to it or not.
  Squadron Leader Burden: Further to that point of order. I suggest that if they have not previously appeared in an Order and if they made their first appearance here, then I am entitled to discuss them. If not, these new cloths and new Schedules can be introduced and discussion on them can be stifled. I submit that the general argument I am advancing applies to these cloths and that I am, therefore, entitled to continue on that line.
  Mr. Speaker: I must confess that it is very difficult for me. I think we should have some new rules making it possible for ordinary persons to understand what some of these Orders mean. My notes to guide me say that in this Schedule the whole of column 1 (a) is a reproduction of the existing First Schedule and cannot therefore be discussed. Only the "A" numbers in column (b) and the corresponding prices in column 2 are new and therefore debatable on this Order.
  Squadron Leader Burden: And the Second Schedule. If you refer to page 9, Mr. Speaker, you will find that there are a considerable number of new cloths, and surely the fact that they appear for the first time entitles me to pursue my general argument which, in fact, covers those new cloths referred to in columns (b) and in the prices. I am referring to cloth 219A/1, which is a new cloth and to which the arguments I am advancing apply; to 210G/1, which is a new cloth; and to 219B/2. All are included in

  1491
  column (b) on page 9. On that basis I trust I may be allowed to pursue my argument in relation to those cloths.
  In reply to my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
  "But we undertake as far as possible to avoid using in future Schedule headings of the type to which objection has been taken tonight. I cannot say anything fairer than that. A lot of consideration is being given to this subject by the British Standards Institute and the trade as a whole, and I am hoping that it will be possible sometime in the future to define 'wool cloth' a little better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 1297–8.]
  I submit that that reply suggested that the hon. Member was sympathetic. His general attitude tonight shows that if anything his sympathy has grown with the passage of time, and possibly with the change in his Department. It was founded on an apprehension of the fact that to describe as wool cloth textiles containing in some cases not more than 15 per cent. wool or animal fibre could not be defended on the ground that it was either in the public interest or that it was an ethical commercial practice.
  The next day, on 14th December, I had fortuitiously put down a Question to the President of the Board of Trade in which I asked him if he would
  "ensure that utility wool cloth made partly from fibre and any garment made therefrom are clearly marked with the composition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 1326.]
  The President of the Board of Trade replied, "No, Sir." That was despite the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary on the previous day had shown that he felt these descriptions needed amendment.
  Indeed, the President of the Board of Trade said that the description of the cloths had "proved satisfactory." I would ask, satisfactory to whom? Satisfactory to
  the consumers, to unscrupulous manufacturers, to the Board of Trade or to the Government generally? Or satisfactory so that they could hide the rise in the cost
  of living. To describe textiles in related Schedule 3J as "wool and animal fibre,"
  when they comprise only 15 per cent. wool and 85 per cent. rayon or cotton is wrong. I take the view that this is absolutely indefensible.
  Surely it is up to the Board of Trade itself, as a Department responsible for the Merchandise Marks Act, to show that it
  1492
  applies the same rules of conduct in describing merchandise as it expects from ordinary traders. Indeed, I would suggest that their responsibility is all
  the greater. Indeed, it is a fact that this question of the description of cloth goes very deep. I understand that the Governments of South Africa and Australia have made representations to the Board of Trade in regard to the use of the term "wool" and it is a fact that in Australia and South Africa in 1949—and I say that this applies to my argument because it shows how strongly——
  Mr. Rhodes: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has now returned to raw wool. The cloths about which he is speaking and upon which he makes his argument were not introduced by this Order at all. They were included in the Order for the first time, but it merely referred back to the Utility Woven Cloth Order. I must submit that discussions about it can only take place on the Cloth Order.
  Squadron Leader Burden: That is an extraordinary statement. The Minister seeks to defend this by saying that these cloths have never appeared before but he then seeks to stop the discussion by saying that they can be referred to only under the Cloth Order. These cloths have now been introduced into these Schedules and put on the market by the Board of Trade, and I submit, therefore, that I am justified in raising the matter in the House. If, as suggested by the hon. Member in his opening remarks, we are now to go back to the Wool Cloth Order, that would indeed be attractive if it meant that we should go back to a cloth which was really wool. This matter has gone so deep that in 1949 the Governments of South Africa and Australia, following the refusal of the Board of Trade to accept their point of view, introduced legislation in their countries to protect their people against cloth from this country as described in these Schedules. They felt that under the Schedules the public would not know what they were buying.
  I submit that this false description should be investigated. I hope the Minister responsible will ensure that in future correct descriptions are given. On 12th April, when this Schedule first came out describing the cloth as of "wool and animal fibre," I asked the hon. Gentleman

  1493
  if these cloths in fact contained "short-staple rayon and/or cotton." In his reply, despite the fact that they are described as being "of wool and animal fibre," he said "Yes, Sir." In reply to a further supplementary he said:
  "I have already met the wishes of the hon. and gallant Member in the way that we are making our definitions in our orders."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 1176.]
  That, I submit, shows perfectly clearly that the hon. Gentleman knows we are asking for something which is in the public interest and which is right and proper.
  I hope that there will be no more seesawing and no more changing feet over this situation, but that the Minister will admit quite honestly and sincerely that something should be done about it and should make up his mind to do it. I have had in my hand some of these new cloths which are described in the Schedule as "wool" and which contain only 15 per cent. wool. I have had in my hand cloths described in the Schedule as "wool" but which contain as much as 65 to 75 per cent. of rayon, only the remainder being wool.
  I say that this situation cannot be defended. I cannot understand how the Parliamentary Secretary can describe the cloth as being "of wool and animal fibre" when it contains 15 per cent. wool and 85 per cent. cotton, because cotton is not an animal fibre; cotton, as he well knows, is a vegetable fibre. I cannot understand how he can defend the position in which a cloth described as "wool" can contain only 15 per cent. wool and 85 per cent. rayon. I cannot understand how he can defend the description of such a cloth as "wool and animal fibre," because rayon is not an animal fibre—and he knows it. It is a manufactured fibre.
  I say that this business of describing these textiles as of woollen fibre when they can and do contain far more of another material other than wool, this camouflage of debased quality, is designed to mislead the public, and I submit that the House is entitled to ask for an undertaking that this position will be rectified at the earliest moment. The Board of Trade should not set the pace in perpetrating a fraud upon the public.
  I do not intend to ask that the Order be annulled in its entirety, but I do ask that it should be examined again by the
  1494
  Board of Trade. Indeed, my hon. Friends and I, and, I believe, the trade in general, are hopeful that now that a legal mind has gone to the Board of Trade, we shall not have all this confusion and chaos in the issuing of Orders, and I hope that the new President will ensure that when descriptions of cloth and merchandise are applied by the Board of Trade they do bear some resemblance to what they are describing.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. David Renton: I beg to second the Motion.
  It has been ably and forcefully moved
  by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gillingham (Squadron Leader Burden). In seconding, I wish to put forward two reasons why it seems to me that this Order deserves the second thoughts of the Government. My first reason may be considered somewhat technical, but when you, Sir, and hon. Members have heard these reasons it may well be thought that this Order, which is intended to put right the difficulty caused by the previous Order No. 413, which was revoked in accordance with your Ruling, nevertheless has not yet put the matter right.
  It is material to bear in mind that in the first instance this present Order No. 649 was made and laid before Parliament on 16th April, which was three days before you gave your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, in relation to Order No. 413. It was stated by the Secretary for Overseas Trade in answer to a Question by the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) on 30th April:
  "S.I. 1951 No. 649 was laid before this House on 20th April, 1951, because it was anticipated that Mr. Speaker would also rule that this Order, though submitted to the House on 16th April, 1951, was not laid in conformity with his Rules."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 117–8.]
  Mr. Speaker, it may well be thought that even now this Order is not laid in accordance with the Rules which you laid down.
  If we examine this Order No. 649 we find that its terms are really rather remarkable. Paragraph I says:
  "The Utility Apparel (Maximum Prices and Charges) Order, 1951(d),"—
  that is what we may refer to as the principal Order, and which was contained in Statutory Instrument No. 216—
  "as amended"—

  1495
  and I particularly invite attention to the words "as amended"—
  "shall have effect subject to the amendment that for the First and Third Schedules thereto"—
  it is difficult to know precisely whether the word "thereto" refers to the principal Order or to Order No. 413—
  "there shall be substituted respectively the First and Second Schedules to this Order."
  Stopping there for one moment, we find that the principal Order as amended by No. 413—as we see from the note "(e)"—shall have effect; but we know that Order No. 413 was not only considered by you, Sir, to have been not properly laid, but it is revoked by paragraph 2 of this present Order. So we have the most extraordinary contradiction in terms. In paragraph 2 Order No. 413 is revoked. In paragraph 1 the principal Order is expressed to have been amended by Order No. 413. I submit that in these circumstances this Order No. 649 just does not make sense.
  I go further than that. I would invite attention once more, even though it may seem that I am overstressing the matter—to the fact that No. 649 was made and laid originally before your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, was given, and I would submit that it was made without due recognition of the reasons which prompted your Ruling. I do not know, and it would not be right for me to inquire, whether it was known whether your Ruling was going to be given, and it is not material to consider that; but the point is that the Ruling which you gave in relation to Order No. 413 was based upon the fact that it added a new Third Schedule to No. 216 and revoked No. 296. You said, Sir:
  "It adds a new Third Schedule to No. 216, and it revokes No. 296, which had already added two Schedules to No. 216. Therefore, it revokes two Schedule and adds one. The two Schedules have been law for some time. It is quite impossible to add one Schedule—a child to a parent whose children are already dead. Under my Rulings of about three weeks ago I must say that I think this Order should be laid in proper form."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 2147–8.]
  It is very difficult—I must confess that I find it very difficult—to understand precisely the net effect of the revocation of No. 413 by this Order and the substitution of the First and Second Schedules of this
  1496
  Order in replacement of the First and Third Schedules of the original Order, more especially if we are told that the principal Order is to be considered amended by No. 413 which is revoked. I am a man with a simple mind. I do not claim any subtlety. To my simple mind this appears to be absolute and complete nonsense which ought not to be allowed to remain part of the law of the land.
  I would also invite the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that, when considering the principal Order on 3rd April this year, he pointed out that a large number of prosecutions took place under the principal Order, and, therefore, presumably we have to——
  Mr. Rhodes: Oh, no. Let me put the hon. Gentleman straight on that. I said under the related Schedule.
  Mr. Renton: Well, related Schedules are of no legal force, of no validity, of no effect, and no prosecution can be made under them, except in so far as they derive power from the principal Order. Let me quote what the hon. Gentleman said to reinforce my argument. He said this:
  "Anyone looking through the related Schedules would see how difficult it is carrying through each item and relating a specific price to a specific item in the Related Schedule. It is a big job and one that calls for a tremendous knowledge of calculation and slide rule. It is for enforcement purposes,"—
  which means prosecutions——
  Mr. Rhodes: I know that.
  Mr. Renton: Which means prosecutions—
  "and the intention of the related Schedule"—
  Really, we all wish to despatch our business as evenly and quickly as possible. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will stop this running commentary of grunts. He said:
  "It is for enforcement purposes, and the intention of the related Schedule is that the maximum prices or long stock prices can be defined, because hon. Gentlemen opposite know quite well that it is easy to evade the law in the case of a Schedule where there is only a margin."
  That is the sort of thing we sometimes tell the Government.
  "It is easy for people who intend to do such a thing to do it. In the experience of the Board of Trade the largest number of prosecutions have been in relation to items in the

  1497
  Third Schedule and it is necessary to have a maximum price related to the margins as defined in the order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 152.]
  That Third Schedule to which the
  hon. Gentleman referred is now replaced, we presume, by the Second Schedule of this Order. That is why I say it is vitally important that we should get this matter right, so that justice may be done, and it is no answer for the hon. Gentleman, when presented with an argument based on the need for accuracy, to say that people are prosecuted under the related Schedule. I tell him, quite categorically, that nobody can be prosecuted under related Schedules alone.
  Mr. Rhodes: If the hon. Member will look again he will see that what I was explaining was the need for related Schedules. That was all.
  Mr. Renton: Well, I think we all understood the need for related Schedules.
  Mr. Rhodes: The hon. Gentleman does not.
  Mr. Renton: I have not yet dealt with related Schedules as fully as I hope to do. The point I have been trying to make is this, that related Schedules derive their legal validity from the Schedules in this Order; the Schedules in this Order derive their validity from the terms on the face of this Order; the terms on the face of this Order——
  Mr. Rhodes: Which Order is the hon. Gentleman referring to now?
  Mr. Renton: When I say "this Order" I think it may reasonably be assumed that I am referring to the Order against which we are praying.
  Mr. Rhodes: It would be simple to identify the Schedule which related to the related Schedule.
  Mr. Renton: If the hon. Gentleman thinks he can wriggle out of this argument that I am putting to him by trying to throw as much confusion into the debate as he possibly can, I can assure him that he is wrong; and if he wishes to have my assistance in trying to clear his own mind in the matter, perhaps he will be good enough to listen.
  I was saying that the Schedules in this Order against which we are praying—
  1498
  S.I. No. 649, 1951—derive their validity from the body of the Order, which I say is a contradiction in terms, because of the presence of the words "as amended" in paragraph 1 regarded in the light of the word "revoked" in paragraph 2. But if the hon. Gentleman is seriously concerned to know how it is that his Department is entitled to punish people for non-observance of the provisions of the related Schedules, then, of course, he has to look back through the provisions mentioned in the preamble to this Order.
  I have attempted to explain what, I agree, is a somewhat technical argument, which appears to me to make this Order invalid. I do not agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gillingham, if I may say so incidentally, that we object only in part to this Order. We object to the related Schedules only in part; with that I can agree. But it appears to me that, from the point of view of legal validity, this Order ought to be completely re-laid, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will invite the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the new President of the Board of Trade to this particular matter, so that his brilliant legal mind can be brought to bear on it.
  Let me discuss now, at no great length, the substance of related Schedule No. 3J. I presume that it would be in order to do that, because, although——
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that related Schedule No. 3J is one which is not discussable.
  Mr. Renton: With respect, may I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the reason which I had in mind which appeared to me to make it discussable was just this—that, as I understand the matter, related Schedule No. 3J was not in the principal Order; it was in Order No. 413, but Order No. 413 was revoked without Prayer; it is now re-embodied in this Order—brought into force once more by this Order No. 649; and this is, therefore, the first occasion when this House has had an opportunity of discussing the contents of the related Schedule.
  Mr. Speaker: We have already prayed against related Schedule No. 3J, and it has been carried by this House, and what has been passed by this House we cannot challenge in this way.
  Sir John Mellor: Order No. 413 was revoked only three days after it was laid before this House. It was Order No. 413 which introduced related Schedule 3J. It was only three days after it was laid that it was revoked by the Order against which we are now praying. I submit that this House has had no opportunity to pray against related Schedule 3J.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it was revoked. Surely, it is already law, and, therefore, it is not revoked.
  Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend in his Question of 30th April, to only part of the answer to which I referred, asked the President of the Board of Trade:
  "why on the 20th April he laid before this House, Statutory Instrument, 1951, No. 413, together with Statutory Instrument, 1951, No. 649, which revoked it as from the 23rd April; for what purpose No. 413 was revoked three days after it was laid; and why a slip was necessary to correct No. 649."
  The answer was:
  "S.I. No. 413 was laid before this House on the 20th April, 1951, in pursuance of Mr. Speaker's Ruling given on the 19th April, 1951, that this Order, though submitted to the House on the 12th March, 1951, was not in conformity with the Rules that he had laid down and it should be laid in proper form."
  Therefore, we reach this position that No. 413——
  Mr. Speaker: No. 413 has nothing to do with this. This is No. 216. That was the Order under which Schedule 1L comes in.
  Sir J. Mellor: Related Schedule 3J was introduced for the first time by Order No. 413 which is the Order which is revoked by the Order against which we are praying.
  Mr. Speaker: I disagree. The only new related Schedules are 1L, and 5H, and, although I suggested that Schedules 6C and 17A are also debatable, these are the only new ones. The others are already existing.
  Sir J. Mellor: The Explanatory Note says, inaccurately, that Schedule No. 3J was in Order No. 216. No. 3J was introduced for the first time by Order No. 413 which was revoked only three days after it was laid.
  Mr. Speaker: These things to me are most frightfully complicated. I do not
  1500
  understand a single thing about them. This is my information, and if the hon. Baronet says that I am wrong, I am quite prepared to accept it, because I cannot say "No."
  Sir J. Mellor: May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the Explanatory Note of Order No. 413. I think that it is accurate in this case. The Order brings into force related Schedule No. 3J.
  Mr. Speaker: Carry on now.
  Mr. Renton: I will endeavour, although this is a most important subject, as it affects so many people, to do my best to bring my remarks to an early conclusion, but I am afraid that I may take some minutes longer. In Related Schedule 3J, we find that various articles are to be made, with the consent of the Board of Trade, which are described as "wool and animal fibre cloths." My hon. Friend has, however, already pointed out that some of these cloths do not consist wholly or even mainly of wool and animal fibre. If I may give further examples, distinct and fresh from those already given, on page 4, of the related Schedule 3J, in column (b), item 209G, there is a cloth which is in fact 57 per cent. wool and 43 per cent. cotton and viscose rayon.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that the whole of the mover's speech was not out of order. He dealt with the composition—whether it was wool or a percentage of wool over fibre. I do not think that comes into this Order. All that we are dealing with are the prices of the finished goods, whatever they are made of. We are dealing with the increased prices of finished goods, regardless of whether they are wool, fibre, cotton or anything else.
  Mr. Renton: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that this related Schedule, and the Order under whose authority it is made, deal not only with maximum prices. They deal also with the nature and specification of the goods which are to be supplied.
  Mr. Rhodes: It deals with the specification number which goes back in the Cloth Order, but nothing more.
  Mr. Renton: Moreover, I would submit that the price is meaningless, unless one knows what one is buying. Even if

  1501
  there were merely a Maximum Price Order, it would still be in order for us to consider whether the goods described in the Order were worth the prices which have been charged. I shall not give a great many details in order to substantiate my argument, but I shall give one or two, because I feel that it is right that one should not make allegations if one is not prepared to give particulars of them. On page 5, for example we find No. 219—Women's or Maids' Jackets tailored and fully lined.
  Mr. Rhodes: What Order is this?
  Mr. Renton: Page 5 of related Schedule 3J, Item 4, third part of column B, Item 219, and the maximum price is 52s. 3d. I should say that the wholesaler's overriding price for a garment is 52s. 3d. That particular item, I am informed, is only 46 per cent. wool and 54 per cent. cotton. Surely, it is important in a country whose fortunes are so largely founded upon wool, that we should understand what wool is. It would be really shattering to the constitutional beliefs of the British people to find, for example, that the Woolsack, upon which the Lord Chancellor sits when presiding over another place, was not made of 100 per cent. wool.
  So I submit that it is equally shattering to the lady who buys a cloth which she thinks is wool and animal fibre to find that it has no animal fibre in it at all and is not made even mainly of wool but consists of only 40 per cent. wool. It seems that the public, the trade and the Board of Trade all have completely different ideas as to what wool is. The public, I would submit, would normally expect an article described as wool to be 99 per cent. wool. The trade, I understand, as represented by the Retail Trade Standards Association, say that it should be at least 90 per cent. wool, and under these Board of Trade Orders it appears that wool cloth may mean that it consists of as little as 40 per cent. wool, as per the example I have given.
  If we go to Order No. 608 of 1950, to which by cross reference, I submit I am entitled to refer, because it gives a definition without which this Order and the principal Order could not have existed, we find that the Board of Trade appear to hold the view that
  1502
  "'cloth of wool and animal fibre' means any cloth, whether or not subjected to any process of finishing, woven on looms, being cloth of which the textile content comprises more than 15 per cent. by weight of fibre (whether or not subjected to any process of manufacture or recovery) from the coat or fleece of alpaca, camel, goat, hare, lamb, llama, rabbit, sheep, vicuña or yak, or of horsehair; but does not include cloth of any width not exceeding 18 inches woven with two self edges;"
  It is as well that we should really understand what is the effect of these related Schedules. Of course, the Board of Trade at one time had a better intention than is stated in the Order to which I have referred, for on 17th December 1949, in a circular to the trade, the Board of Trade said this:
  "It will be readily understood that terms in common parlance, which are used in a special sense by a trade, may deceive, or at least confuse, the man in the street if he is brought into contact with them, as by their application to consumer goods. The Board of Trade, as the Department having special responsibilities under the Merchandise Marks Act, would be opposed to any publicity, which might cause further difficulties in this respect. The Board might, indeed, be obliged to consider prosecutions in any case where material deception can be proved."
  I entirely agree with those sentiments.
  In passing, may I say that standards, which the Board of Trade are rightly trying to negotiate with the industry, so as to have clearly understood, well defined and universally applied standards within the United Kingdom, are important only so long as they are accurate in their description and consistent with the law, only so long as the law is consistent with them, and only so far as those standards are faithfully applied both in Statutory Instruments and on sales to the public.
  I was tempted to say a great deal more to substantiate these arguments; but, as sometimes happens when arguments have been deployed, one hopes they may be sufficiently clear to need no further elaboration. May I conclude by saying this. The Ruling, which you, Mr. Speaker, gave on Statutory Instrument 413, was, I would submit, a vindication, if vindication were needed, of those of us who prayed against that Order, and, indeed, a vindication of our conduct on many of these occasions. But I would submit that this Order with its patent defects is a further vindication of our attitude towards this series of orders.

  1503
  I most earnestly ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to bear this in mind—that, when a great Government Department co-operates with a great industry and tries to make the action of the two dovetail for the benefit of the public, they will never satisfactorily achieve their purpose or achieve justice to the traders or to the consumers, unless they get their plans straight; and unless the laws, which they make, contain very much more sense than these laws which we are trying to discuss tonight. It is because I believe most sincerely that this series of Orders is complete nonsense that I beg to second the Motion.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. Grimond: Before the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) spoke it was apparent that it was going to be difficult to remain in order in this discussion. Since he has spoken, I am not so sure that it is even possible, because, as I understand it, the burden of the first part of his remarks was to the effect that the order which
  we are now discussing does not exist. I am emboldened, however, by the fact that far greater authorities than I have some difficulty in deciding where the bounds of order in this matter lie, and my remarks will at least be extremely brief.
  It used to be a complaint against governments that when in difficulties one of their devices was to debase the currency. Nowadays, I am afraid that there is a temptation in the face of rising prices to debase the specification in the utility schemes. No one knows better than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that wool has a deservedly high reputation. I wish to return to the point of substance in this discussion, which is the use of the word "wool" as a description of materials which are by no means pure wool.
  As an instance of the dangers to which this may lead, I would draw the attention of the House to a matter about which the Parliamentary Secretary knows full well. Certain of us have had discussions with him on the possibility of bringing within the utility scheme certain high grade hand woven wool goods, and one of the great difficulties in so doing has been that the weavers are frightened that if they come
  1504
  within the utility scheme they will lose their very high reputation. If orders such as this are going to describe as wool utility goods which contain a very small proportion of wool, it is going to be impossible to preserve the high reputation of wool which those weavers desire to do, and they will never enter any scheme.
  Mr. Rhodes: We have really gone wide of the mark. There has been a full discussion on this Order, but we cannot now start discussing something which is not in the utility scheme at all.
  Mr. Grimond: I merely used that by way of illustration of the importance of this question of the description of wool, and, incidentally, on the price charged for it and the specification under which it is entered. I do not want to elaborate the point, but the Parliamentary Secretary must appreciate that if the high reputation of British wool is to be maintained we must attach considerable importance to the word. I would ask him to tell us whether this word is in future to be used as it has been in this Order, or whether it is to be reserved for goods which are, if not wholly wool, at least 90 per cent. or more than 90 per cent. pure wool.
  7.28 p.m.
  Sir John Mellor: I only want to raise one short point which I think a little important. I have great doubt whether four of these related Schedules which have been laid with Order 649 are, in fact, related to it at all, because if the Parliamentary Secretary would look at the heading to related Schedule 3J he will see that it is specifically for the purpose of Order 216, as amended by Order 413. There is no reference whatsoever to Order 649. Then if we look at 4L we find exactly the same thing. On the other hand, if we look at 16C we find that it is issued for the purpose of Order 216, as amended by Order 296. Exactly the same thing applies in related Schedule 17A. We know that Order 413 was revoked by this Order 649 and that Order 296 was revoked by Order 413.
  It seems to me that there is no proper identification of the Schedules which have been laid before this House, of which copies are available in the Vote Office, with the Order on which they rely for their validity. If they have any validity at all, it is under Order No. 649 against

  1505
  which we are now praying, and therefore I would say that if they are not related to Order 649 these Related Schedules 3J, 4L, 16C and 17A have no validity whatsoever.
  7.31 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Rhodes): This is a very complicated subject. I think that this Order ought to be called the "Festival Order" because we have certainly had a festival while we have been considering it.
  May I deal with one or two of the points of substance which the hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham (Squadron Leader Burden), raised? I should have been much happier to reply in full on this subject of the description of wool if we had been discussing it in its proper context, which is on the Wool and Animal Fibres Order itself. I am not belittling the hon. and gallant Member's efforts to state his point of view. He has done it very well. He has brought it to the front on many occasions. If it were not for his aptitude for gross exaggeration, his points would carry more weight and would have more validity. For instance, he referred wholesale to unscrupulous manufacturers——
  Squadron Leader Burden: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to be fair. I made the point that this constant debasing left a loophole for unscrupulous manufacturers. I am not referring to all manufacturers, but I am saying that there are some black sheep even among woollen manufacturers, as there are in every other walk of life.
  Mr. Rhodes: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to make his point, but I would draw his attention to the fact that he has lumped together all cloths without having had a really good look at this Order, which I must not mention, and he has been carried away with the idea that the description he has been trying to apply to it, relates to the whole of the cloths in the Cloth Order. It does nothing of the sort. This description in these related Schedules of wool and so on is intended to give an identity in a previous Order. It is not a trade description. Indeed, the hon. and gallant Gentleman answered the point himself when he quoted from a document which gave the trade description—the document
  1506
  relating to the figure of 90 per cent. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree with that.
  In the Cloth Order there is only a small group of cloths which can come under this heading at all. Anyone listening to the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have thought that there was a wholesale conspiracy going on to defraud the public. Cloth is specified in the Cloth Order as worsted, wool and the like. I am not going to spend any more time on that. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, I undertook in the House on 13th December, 1950, to avoid the use of the term "wool cloth" in all our orders as they came up for revision. This we have done, and in the case of the Order under discussion we have used the term "wool and animal fibre cloths" in order to facilitate the reference back to utility woven cloth.
  In this small field, there may be a need for alteration. I have already set on foot inquiries into the possibility of identifying cloths in this particular field, and some time ago I asked the Clothing Development Council to undertake this work. The hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham can be quite certain that it will need quite a lot of consideration not only by the wholesalers and retailers but also by the manufacturers, because the alteration of trade descriptions can make a considerable difference when an industry is trying to sell its cloths on the export market.
  I rather deprecate the suggestion that there is a lot of evasion, debasement and unscrupulous behaviour on the part of either the manufacturers or the garment makers. I promise the hon. and gallant Gentleman that when the investigations are complete I will give him an opportunity to raise the matter again so that we can announce what we propose to do. I hope that meets the hon and gallant Gentleman's point.
  The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) raised, first of all, the question of validity. I am not going to enter into a discussion with him, as a lawyer, on the validity of this Order.
  Squadron Leader Burden: Where is the Attorney-General?
  Mr. Rhodes: If the Attorney-General were here, it would still be subject to discussion and deliberation by the Law Officers for they are still discussing it. If I may correct the chronology of the

  1507
  matter, I agree with the hon. Member for Huntingdon that the Ruling of Mr. Speaker on 19th April upset the timing of Order 413. It also upset the timing of Order 649 to the extent that the Order was originally laid before the House on 16th April, to come into operation, if I remember rightly, on 23rd April. With Order 413 we were not able to catch up on the timing by laying it again, because if we relaid it, it would have been after the date of operation which, if I remember rightly, was 29th March. As the Ruling did not come until 19th April, it would have been after the event. I am not going to discuss, or be led into, that point in any shape or form, because the Law Officers are discussing the whole matter.
  In the case of 649, it was quite easy to catch up on it, because although we ostensibly laid it on 16th April, which was before the date of the Speaker's Ruling, we relaid, and added to the Order a corrigendum showing the new date. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Huntingdon has the corrigendum. He will see that it was made on 16th April. The making of it has really no relation to the date of operation. It was laid before Parliament on the 20th, and it came into operation on 23rd April. There is no complaint about that at all. That puts that matter quite straight.
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no complaint at all about the fact that there was a lapse of only three days between the ultimate laying before Parliament on the 20th and the coming into operation on the 23rd. Can he explain how he justifies such a very short interval after the laying of an Order, which has to be published throughout the country and obeyed, and in respect of which people can be punished if they do not obey?
  Mr. Rhodes: The hon. Gentleman would hardly do as the champion of the traders. He is asking that the Order shall be postponed another week or fortnight, so that even the Orkneys and the Shetlands will get it in their post, when it comes. I think he will agree that he cannot both criticise the Board of Trade for delay and in the same breath criticise it for being too speedy.
  Mr. Renton: Surely one can criticise the Board of Trade for lack of planning with foresight.
  Mr. Rhodes: Of course, but in this particular instance it simply would not be true. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about the Schedules, I hope that he will consider the point I am going to make, because it is really answering him. Number 413 substituted, in the Third Schedule, the principal Order. The Third Schedule originally in the principal Order therefore disappeared. The Third Schedule in the present Order is therefore substituted for the Third Schedule brought in by Statutory Instrument 413.
  Mr. Renton: But there is no Third Schedule to the present Order. There are only two Schedules.
  Mr. Rhodes: Yes, and that is why we brought in the Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that the question of validity does not arise. In any case, I am not prepared to be drawn into a long legal argument on the question of non-validity. That statement, I may as well warn the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) ——
  Sir J. Mellor: I quite appreciate the hon. Gentleman's position. I do not expect him to give me an answer now, particularly as the Law Officers, as he has told us, are considering the whole question of the validity of these Orders. Would he be so good as to draw the attention of the Law Officers to the point which I have raised as to the identification of the related Schedules? It is one that ought to be very carefully considered.
  Mr. Rhodes: I cannot guarantee to do that. I do not know whether it is in my function to draw the attention——
  Mr. Renton Mr. Renton rose——
  Mr. Rhodes: All right, wait a minute. I am sure that the solicitor to the Board of Trade, who is listening to this debate, is making a very careful note of the point and that if there is any substance in it he will be delighted to draw attention to it.
  Sir J. Mellor: I would rather have the view of the Law Officer whether there is any substance in the point I have raised, and not merely a Departmental opinion.
  Mr. Rhodes: For the purpose of this debate we cannot unfortunately summon the Law Officers to the Bar. We shall have to wait for them, I am afraid.
  The other point which the hon. Member for Huntingdon raised was about animal fibres. I do not know whether he made a further survey of what animal fibres could be used, but his case was substantial enough. I answered that point in a way which I think was satisfactory to the hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham. Now with regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I am afraid I cannot give him much satisfaction, because he was discussing something which was really not in the utility scheme at all. With regard to the other matter raised by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield about the Schedules, I think I have satisfactorily answered that one. I have indicated to him that I cannot be drawn any further into a legal quibble.
  Sir J. Mellor: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point, I would point out that he has not answered me at all. I quite appreciate that he cannot, and it would be unfair to expect him to do so without notice. I asked that he should draw the attention of the Law Officers to the point when they are considering the other points. If he will do that, I shall be content to await the opinion which they will ultimately give.
  Mr. Rhodes: Certainly, that will be conveyed to the right quarter. I have replied fairly fully to the serious points in the discussion, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham will now withdraw the Prayer.
  7.49 p.m.
  Squadron Leader Burden: I think the House will be very gratified to learn that the Law Officers are examining the whole question of the validity of these Orders. In fact, I should imagine that the hon. Gentleman——
  Mr. Rhodes: They are not considering the whole question of the validity of the Orders, but only the point which was raised by Question and answer in the House in regard to Statutory Instrument 413.
  Squadron Leader Burden: Again, the hon. Gentleman has changed his ground.
  Mr. Rhodes: No.
  Squadron Leader Burden: He has done nothing but change his ground the whole time. When he has got out of one corner, he has found the next corner into which he has got much darker than the other. I believe the entire House is of the view that the whole question of the laying of these Orders should be reviewed at the earliest possible moment——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Which Order——
  Squadron Leader Burden: The principal one——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order! The hon. and gallant Gentleman must sit down when I stand. We are dealing only with Order No. 649.
  Squadron Leader Burden: Order No. 649 should be looked at. The hon. Gentleman really cannot get away with some of the arguments which he has put forward. He has asked that the description of these cloths should be put in their proper context, and he stated that there had been gross exaggeration on my part because they were not trade descriptions. For whose purpose were these descriptions prepared? If they were not prepared for the trade and the trade paid no attention to them——
  Mr. Rhodes: I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman straight away. It is an order for the distributors. Most of the discussion has been totally out of order for that reason. The purpose of this is identification of the cloth by retailers and wholesalers.
  Squadron Leader Burden: When it suits the hon. Gentleman he refers to the master Order, which is not a distributors' order at all.
  Mr. Rhodes: Of course.
  Squadron Leader Burden: The hon. Gentleman now says, "Of course." Now he switches back to the distributors' order to defend a position which is completely untenable. If these descriptions are for the retail trade and not for the manufacturers, that makes it all the worse because it encourages the retailers to pass on to the public a description of merchandise which is entirely false. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman knows that his position is completely indefensible.

  1511
  He said that there had been very great exaggeration because in only a few cases were the cloths so described. If there are so few cases it would be all the simpler for the Board of Trade to introduce a system to give correct discriptions. I have a suggestion to make. It would be very easy for the Board of Trade to describe a cloth containing less than 50 per cent. wool and more than 50 per cent. rayon as a rayon animal cloth, a cloth containing more than 50 per cent. cotton as a cotton wool cloth, and a cloth containing 90 per cent. or more wool as a wool cloth. If the hon. Gentleman really applied himself to it he would realise that that is perfectly fair, that it would stop the public being misled, and that these descriptions could very easily be applied.
  The hon. Gentleman's reply has been utterly inadequate. He has not faced up to the position at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] The position is now that the hon. Gentleman intends—as do hon. Gentlemen opposite who will vote against the Motion if we divide—that the public shall continue to be misled, and hon. Gentlemen opposite glory in it. I again ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the matter and see if something can be done in the interests of the public, and certainly in the interests of honest traders.
  Worsted cloth was mentioned. The Board of Trade have issued a circular to traders which says:
  "Although the term to the industry refers to a method of production of yarn, the Board of Trade are not aware that it has ever been applied by the industry to the production of materials other than wool by that method. To the public it has always meant a particular
  1512
  kind of all-wool material. It seems most probable, therefore, that if applied to a cloth"—
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] Wait for it—
  "consisting only partly of wool, the term 'worsted' would be held by the courts to be a false trade description and a contravention of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887."
  In fact, the Board of Trade are issuing a circular to traders in which they are threatening them with prosecution under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, if they describe worsted as cloth containing——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The circular which has been referred to is not before us, is it?
  Squadron Leader Burden: I am quoting from it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It does not arise on this Motion.
  Squadron Leader Burden: I am merely using it as an illustration because the hon. Gentleman used the term "worsted." The Board of Trade are threatening prosecution if worsted cloth is not entirely comprised of wool, and yet they themselves lay down a cloth described as worsted which is not entirely wool cloth. When I moved the Motion, I stated that I should be prepared to ask leave to withdraw it, but in view of the unsatisfactory answer by the hon. Gentleman I shall not do so.
  Question put, and negatived.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Bowden.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes to Eight o'Clock.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Unclaimed Medicine (Cost)
  Unclaimed Medicine (Cost)
  Doctors' Lists
  Doctors' Lists
  Blood Donors
  Blood Donors
  Hospital, Purley (Surgeon)
  Hospital, Purley (Surgeon)
  Hospital, Lewes (Pay Beds)
  Hospital, Lewes (Pay Beds)
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
EMPLOYMENT
  Dockers (Earnings)
  Dockers (Earnings)
  Sevenoaks
  Sevenoaks
  Short-time Workers
  Short-time Workers
  Night-Baking (Report)
  Night-Baking (Report)
  Safety Regulations
  Safety Regulations
  Factory Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
  EDUCATION (GARDENING)
  EDUCATION (GARDENING)
  EGGS (PRICES)
  EGGS (PRICES)
  CANADA (CUBAN SUGAR TALKS)
  CANADA (CUBAN SUGAR TALKS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Protein Fibre
  Protein Fibre
  Sugar-Cane Waste
  Sugar-Cane Waste
  Fertilisers (Price)
  Fertilisers (Price)
  Sulphur Supplies
  Sulphur Supplies
  Rubber
  Rubber
  Hire Car Laws (Report)
  Hire Car Laws (Report)
  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (CAR PARKS)
  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (CAR PARKS)
  CIVIL DEFENCE BADGES
  CIVIL DEFENCE BADGES
  DRUNKENNESS
  DRUNKENNESS
  ACCUSED PERSONS (INVESTIGATIONS)
  ACCUSED PERSONS (INVESTIGATIONS)
  FOREIGN WORKERS (REPATRIATION)
  FOREIGN WORKERS (REPATRIATION)
  BRITISH ARMY (CLASS Z RESERVE)
  BRITISH ARMY (CLASS Z RESERVE)
POST OFFICE
  Overseas Mail Deliveries
  Overseas Mail Deliveries
  Sub-Postmasters (Pay)
  Sub-Postmasters (Pay)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Wellington
  Wellington
  Mitcham
  Mitcham
  BROADCASTING (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT)
  BROADCASTING (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Arts Council (Purchases)
  Arts Council (Purchases)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  TRAINING FILMS (CONTRACTS)
  TRAINING FILMS (CONTRACTS)
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  Civil Servants (Reduced Fares)
  Civil Servants (Reduced Fares)
  Scientific Advisory Posts
  Scientific Advisory Posts
  R.A.F. (TELEPHONE SERVICES)
  R.A.F. (TELEPHONE SERVICES)
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  REVEREND J. G. MACMANAWAY'S INDEMNITY BILL
  4.6 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  The Preamble:
  Whereas the Reverend James Godfrey MacManaway was declared elected on the eleventh day of February, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, as a member of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland, and on the twenty-fourth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty, as a member of the Commons House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:
  And whereas on the seventeenth day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty, the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council, upon a reference made by Order in Council pursuant to an Address presented by the Commons House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, advised His Majesty that the said James Godfrey MacManaway, having been ordained as a priest according to the use of the Church of Ireland, was disabled by the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act, 1801, from sitting and voting in that House:
  And whereas by virtue of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the said Act of 1801 applies in relation to the House of Commons of Northern Ireland as it applies in relation to the Commons House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:
  Be it therefore enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same. as follows: —
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD had given notice of two Amendments in the Preamble, the first being to add to the second recital:
  "and a resolution to that effect was agreed to by that House on the nineteenth day of October nineteen hundred and fifty:"
  The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill I informed the House that there would be one or two Amendments to be proposed during the Committee stage, to carry out a promise made by the Attorney-General in another place as a result of representations from the Opposition Benches about the recitals that appear in this Preamble. The Opposition case seemed to be that as the matter of law had been remitted to the Privy Council, and as the Privy Council had tendered advice, there would be danger of it being assumed that membership of the House of Commons could no longer be determined by the House of Commons itself, but must be determined by court of law. We have examined the position put before us, and we have found ourselves able to produce words which we think will meet the point raised.
  In the first Amendment we propose to add to the second recital the words set out in the Marshalled List. If this Amendment is added to the Bill, it becomes clear that all that was received from the Privy Council was advice, and that, having received that advice, the House of Commons itself reached the decision to declare the seat vacant. It may be desirable, for the purpose of record in your Lordships' House, if I read the Resolution passed in another place, so that if we have recourse to the Report at a later stage the Resolution will be in front of us. The Resolution was as follows:
  "That this House having taken into consideration the Report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of the Reverend James Godfrey MacManaway, elected a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the constituency of Belfast, West, declares that he was at the time of his election and is disabled from sitting and voting in the House of Commons by reason of the fact that, having been ordained a Priest according to the use of the Church of Ireland, he has received episcopal ordination."
  The second Amendment, which is to add words to the third recital, covers the case of the House of Commons for the Northern Ireland Parliament. In the present case it is unnecessary for the House of Commons of the Northern Ireland Parliament to make a declaration, because Mr. MacManaway gave notice of his retirement from the Seat. The fact is noted here to make it plain that in both cases Parliament has been called upon to deal with the matter after advice has been

  697
  given. With those few words, I beg to move the first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 15, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord said on Second Reading that he was going to move some Amendment of this sort, and we on this side of the Committee certainly have no objection to what he has now moved. In regard to the second Amendment, I wondered why it was necessary to insert words to say that Mr. MacManaway had resigned from the House of Commons of Northern Ireland, and not to put in a similar recital as to what happened to him in the House of Commons here. The noble Lord has said that this is put in only to show that the Northern Ireland Parliament dealt with it in a different way from the House of Commons here, and I think that is probably a satisfactory explanation.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: I beg to move that the second Amendment be approved.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 19, at end insert ("and the said James Godfrey MacManaway gave notice of resignation from the House of Commons of Northern Ireland as from the twenty-second day of January nineteen hundred and fifty-one:").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Preamble, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 2), the Amendments reported; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  FIRE SERVICES BILL
  4.10 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is a very small Bill and it will require only a short speech to make its contents known to your Lordships so that a Second Reading may be given. The Fire Services Act
  698
  of 1947 transferred the National Fire Service from the Government back to the local authorities. Since the change has taken place, it can be said that the high standards of national efficiency achieved have been worthily upheld by the local authorities, their officers and the members of their fire brigades. The general administrative provisions of the Act, too, have worked extremely well, but, unfortunately, an amending Bill is now required because of the drafting of two sections in particular —namely, Sections 26 and 27. The more important Amendments that will be worked into the Act of 1947 relate to Section 27, and they refer to the scheme of superannuation provided by that measure for firemen who are engaged in fighting fires.
  Because of the circumstances in which firemen are employed, and because of the need for early retirement on their part, the superannuation scheme provided in the Act for these men has been advantageous to them—so advantageous that it ought not to apply to those members of fire brigades who are not themselves engaged in fire fighting. It has been assumed that those members of the fire brigades who are not active firemen will be provided for in the normal superannuation services afforded by local authorities. And, indeed, that thought has been generally followed, so that at this time an overwhelming number of men and women employed in such services have been enrolled in the local authorities superannuation schemes. Barely 900 men and women, however, have been left outside, because, unfortunately, in the section of which I am now speaking there is provision that persons engaged in that service should not be members of any superannuation scheme other than that provided for the firemen, although in fact they were ineligible for that scheme and were not taken into it. The proposed Amendments to Section 27 can be briefly stated as follows. Its object is, first, to legalise action taken by local authorities in enrolling members of the fire brigades into their superannuation schemes; secondly, to give those administering the firemen's pensions scheme the right to bring in exclusive provisions in order to prevent people other than those actually engaged in fighting fires, from coming into that scheme, and thirdly, to provide that members of fire brigades not engaged as fire-

  699
  fighters shall enter the normal local authority superannuation scheme.
  Obviously, a certain amount of money will have to be found by the local authorities, and by Parliament, to meet obligations in connection with the extended membership. To some extent this will mean only a change in the form of payment. We do not anticipate that the cost will be very great. Obviously, also, it confronts those members of the fire services who have not gone into any scheme with the need of joining a local authority scheme and of paying contributions together with any arrears of contributions. Where a member of the Fire Service in this position chooses to join the local government scheme provided for him as from the beginning, arrangements will be made by which the contributions may be made on an instalment plan—that is to say, the entire arrears will not be claimed all at once. Where, however, a member of a fire brigade in this position does not want to pay for the arrears, he will be entitled to commence paying from the moment the Bill becomes law, but he will not be entitled to count his past service when it comes to reckoning his pension.
  Clause 1 of the Bill deals with Section 26 of the Act. I need not explain this clause at length because its purpose is only to cover errors or faults in drafting. Here is a typical example. Under the 1947 Act the Minister has authority to produce orders from time to time to meet circumstances as they arise, but he does not appear to have power to bring in a consolidation order. The consequence is that unless we amend the Act in this way, we shall go on having orders piling on top of each other and adding to the confusion. The rest of the amendments contained in Clause 1 deal with mere points of drafting, such as reference to paragraph (b) when reference to paragraph (a) is meant, so I need not dwell upon them. I trust your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading, and I now beg to move that it be read a Second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Shepherd.)
  4.22 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, there is no doubt that we shall all wish to give this Bill a Second Reading. Frankly, the men who find themselves outside the Fire Service scheme and the local gov-
  700
  ernment pensions scheme are in that position owing to the faulty drafting of a previous Act of Parliament. If that is the case, then everybody in Parliament will wish to put that matter right at the earliest possible opportunity. We have no question here about the financing of the scheme, but from the Financial Memorandum which accompanied this measure when it was before another place I understand that the scheme will cost about £5,000 a year to the Exchequer and £15,000 on the local rates. All I am concerned about is what is going to happen to those members of the Fire Service who were not covered by the 1947 scheme because they were in ancillary grades—telephonists or men who did not risk their lives in a fire, and who apparently were not included in any local government officers' pensions scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has given a full and a better explanation than I could grasp from reading the discussion in another place.
  As I understand him, the men who have been left out can now legally come into the local government officers' scheme. They have the option either of coming in from the start of their service and paying their back contributions (and where a man cannot pay all at once an arrangement will be made for him to pay by instalments), or of coming into the scheme from the date when the Bill becomes an Act, without paying the back contributions, but counting their pension rights from the date at which they begin to pay. I think that is a perfectly fair alternative to give to the men who were unintentionally left out. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, desires the Bill to go through all its stages as quickly as possible, if we can have an assurance from him that the Bill is properly drawn up—because we shall not have a Committee stage and the Bill will not be given the meticulous examination which, in view of the faults discovered in the 1947 Act, I expect we should give to it—we shall be prepared to let him have all the stages of the Bill to-day.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord an assurance such as I would be able to do if I were a member of the legal profession, but I am advised that the Bill is properly drawn. I am completely confident that these men will be quite safe in future.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived. Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 2), Bill read 3a and passed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope I shall be forgiven for interrupting the Business of the House for a moment to make an announcement about the dates of the Whitsun Recess. We shall adjourn our sitting for Public Business at your Lordships' rising on Thursday next, May 10, and shall reassemble on Tuesday, May 29.

  LONG LEASES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  4.28 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
  Clause 1:
  Continuation of certain leases
  (2) This section applies to any lease for not less than thirty-one years of property in Scotland if, immediately before the ish, the tenant or a member of his family is living in the property or a part thereof in pursuance of the lease.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (2), after the first "or" to insert:
  "(in the case of a tenant dying after the commencement of this Act)."
  The noble Earl said: When I raised on Second Reading the question of the meaning of "a member of his family" in regard to a tenant, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said that this matter was established by case law. I should like to ask him what case law he particularly refers to, because there are in several Statutes definitions of a family which have slightly different interpretations. I raise this question for one reason only: so that we may be perfectly clear about what the family is. I am not very concerned about who is in the family and who is not, but we should be clear about
  702
  what is meant. If you are going to find out the interpretation by case law, you must seek legal aid; and, not only that, when you have obtained legal aid you have no assurance that the bench will take the same view as the legal adviser takes. I have put in the suggestion that the family should be ascertained only when the tenant dies, because that, as near as may be, is the situation envisaged in the Rent Restrictions Acts. As at present drafted, this Bill contains an entirely different meaning from that of the Rent Restrictions Acts which the noble Lord mentioned on Second Reading, because it envisages a family alive and living apart from the tenant himself. That situation is quite different from anything that exists in other law.
  I should like to say this. It is now May 3, and the Government desire this Bill to be in operation by May 15. I feel that we should have a perfectly clear picture of who is to be covered by the terms of the Act, and who is not. I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. If the tenant dies and leaves his widow in charge of the house at the time of the ish (or termination of the lease) and the property passes by testamentary or other deed to the son who is living apart, is the mother of that son part of his family? As the Bill is drafted, I imagine that she probably would not be. I ask, particularly, that we should not pass a Bill when there is still grave doubt as to who is to be affected by it, and who is not. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 12, after ("or") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): Before I endeavour to answer the noble Earl's questions, it may be as well if I begin by explaining what would be the effect if his Amendment were accepted. The effect would be that the application of Clause 1 would be restricted to the following cases: (a) where the tenant is living in the property immediately before the date of expiry of the lease; and (b) where the tenant dies after the commencement of the Act, and a member of his family is living in the property when the lease expires. These two classes would be covered if my noble friend's Amendment were accepted. On

  703
  the other hand, the restrictions imposed by the noble Earl's Amendment would be that, where a tenant has died before the commencement of the Act, and his widow or unmarried daughter is living in the property at the date of expiry of the lease, she would not get the benefit of the Bill. Similarly, where the tenant is living elsewhere—he may be in hospital —but has permitted his daughter to occupy the property, she would not get the benefit of the Bill if the noble Earl's Amendment were accepted. I should be very much surprised if the noble Earl really intended to restrict the application of Clause 1 in this manner; but, having studied his Amendment and taken advice upon it, I am satisfied that that would be the case. I should like to remind the noble Earl that the whole object of the Bill is to ensure that where a property is used as a family home, by reason of its occupation either by the tenant or by some member or members of his family, the occupants should be protected by the Bill. I believe that the noble Earl desires the protection of the family as much as I do, and I hope that the explanation I have given may satisfy him that it would not be wise to pass his Amendment.
  The noble Earl asked me a question about case law, and recalled a statement that I made on Second Reading. Had the noble Earl told me that he wanted specific cases, I would have armed myself with them. However, I have not done so, and I can only repeat that I am advised that there is on this point a considerable body of case law under the Rent Restrictions Acts which would be equally applicable to the interpretation of this clause. It has been held under these Acts that a member of the family may include, for example, a husband, brother, sister, a niece by blood or by marriage, an adopted child or an illegitimate child: it all depends upon the circumstances as to whether the people I have mentioned have been one of the household for a considerable period, and each case is decided in the courts upon its merits. The tenant or member of his family must be occupying the property, or a part of it, in pursuance of the lease. This Bill, therefore, will apply where the tenant has allowed a member of the family to stay in the property, but will not cover a case
  704
  where the member of the family is occupying under a formal sub-tenancy granted by the tenant. I do not think I can usefully add more to that explanation, and in the circumstances I hope the noble Earl will see fit not to press the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but I should like to ask one or two further questions. I did not ask for cases. What I asked was why the noble Lord assumes that the definition of "family" here should be the same as in the Rent Restrictions Acts. There is no reference whatsoever in this Bill to the Rent Restrictions Acts. Why should not the noble Lord take the definition of "family" from the Crofters' Act? There it is a different definition. People are entitled to know whether this Bill applies to them or not. As to the point that a man may be in hospital, I would suggest that the correct word to use in the Bill would be "residing" in the property. The Bill as drafted says "living" in the property. If a man is in hospital he is still nominally residing at whatever is his proper address. He might even be in Korea, but he still nominally would be residing in his tenancy, wherever it happened to be.
  But these are the words which the Government have selected. Is the noble Lord quite sure of the case of the widow with a son who is living apart, or, if I may use the wording used in Roman law, who is foris familiated—that is to say, he has left his family and is living apart, and possibly has been away for many years? The heritable property of the tenancy would pass to the son. and the son would be the tenant at the date in question. In those circumstances, will the noble Lord say that the widow, the son's mother, is part of his family? I have grave doubts as to whether, under the Bill as drafted at present, she would be. I believe it is of the utmost importance that we should be clear on this and the other matters I have mentioned.
  LORD MORRISON: In answer to the first question of the noble Earl, I should think that there is more connection between this Bill and the Rent Restrictions Acts than with the Crofters' Act. The Rent Restrictions Acts certainly deal with people living in ordinary tenement houses and small homes, and if those

  705
  Acts bear a closer relation than the Crofters' Act, that is the only answer I can give. With regard to the other questions, the noble Earl and I could argue for a long time across the table and get no further. I would remind him that this is merely a temporary standstill Bill, while the Guthrie Committee, which has already started work, endeavours to find a solution to many of the questions he is putting and to find a permanent solution to this leasehold trouble. Frankly, as the Bill will expire in two years from now and cannot be renewed, I think that any answers I could give would only provoke further questions from the noble Earl and would get us nowhere. Speaking personally, I think the widow would be a member of the son's family, but I am not pretending to dogmatise.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: May we take it that the Guthrie Committee, which is starting work now, will have a clear field and will not be trammelled in its work by any precedence which this Bill may establish? The noble Lord has said that this temporary Bill will carry on for a period certain provisions, but that a Committee is meeting to work on the whole subject. Our anxiety is that the continuation of certain provisions by this Bill should not be regarded as a precedent, but that the whole situation should be openly reviewed by the Guthrie Committee.
  LORD MORRISON: I think that the Guthrie Committee have an entirely free hand to review the whole position.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has acknowledged that the drafting is pretty unsatisfactory, and I do no more than to draw your Lordships' attention to that fact. We may pass as a temporary measure something which is unsatisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.43 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to subsection (2):
  "but shall not apply to any lease which has been assigned at any time between the twenty-first day of November nineteen hundred and fifty and the commencement of this Act."
  The noble Earl said: I drew attention to this matter in the course of my Second
  706
  Reading speech. This Bill was introduced into Parliament on November 21 and will not become effective until May 15. During that time it is open to anyone, if they want to take advantage of the Bill, to receive an assignation of a tenancy property. It appears to me that it is quite improper that, during the period when a Bill is under discussion, it should be open to anyone to put themselves into a position to take advantage of that Bill. As a matter of principle, I think it is entirely wrong. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will say that it is very unlikely to happen, and will happen in only very few cases. I accept that it will happen very rarely indeed, if at all, but I still say that it is quite wrong that we should accept and pass a Bill through which a carriage and pair could be driven quite openly, and by which it is quite possible that some "smart Aleck" may obtain a material advantage from the existing tenant.
  We have taken the point of view—and I accept it—that anybody who has had a property in his family for perhaps nearly a hundred years and who has looked after it and maintained it well, suffers hard-ship if it is said that he should hand that property over to the proprietor at the end of the period. I accept that entirely, and I have no doubt that any proprietor who took his full legal rights would, in the opinion of the majority of people, be exercising rather sharp practice. But this is an entirely different position. Here is somebody who has had the property assigned to him since November 21, and who knew about this Bill and had seen it. I want to emphasise that. I am not refer-ring to testamentary settlements in an intestacy or otherwise. He is somebody who has had property assigned, with perhaps six months or less to run. I suggest, with respect, that he should not be in a position to take advantage of this Bill. He is in an entirely different category from those who have been in a tenancy for a very long time to whom a great deal of consideration can very properly be given. I am moving accordingly that no assignation which has taken effect since November 21 shall give the benefits which are laid down in this Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 13, at end insert the said words. —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD MORRISON: I have taken a good deal of trouble over this Amendment, and I hope the noble Earl will forgive me if I make a fairly full reply upon the point which he raises. As the noble Earl knows, his Amendment would exclude from the benefits of the Bill any lease which had been assigned between November 21, 1950, and the commencement of the Act. May I say first, with all respect, that this Amendment does not seem to me to be really appropriate to conditions in Scotland, where, so far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no evidence whatever of any traffic in what might be called "fag-ends" of leases. In view of the difficulty of obtaining a reasonable price for a lease which is due to expire shortly and which, under the Bill, can be continued for a maximum period of only two years, it seems to me that no tenant in Scotland is likely to dispose of his lease until the recommendations of the Guthrie Committee or the terms of the permanent legislation are known. In any event, this Amendment would mean that where the tenant of a lease had, after November 21, 1950, assigned the lease to his son or daughter, or where the tenant had died after that date and the lease had passed to his trustees and had then been assigned by them to his widow, no protection would be afforded by the Bill. I cannot see any possible justification for excluding protection in such cases, and I should be surprised if the noble Earl suggested that it should be excluded.
  There is a further point. The noble Earl's Amendment does not make it clear whether a partial assignation would exclude the application of Clause 1. If a partial assignation were struck at, I am advised that it might lead to difficulties especially in regard to tenements in Scotland, since the assignation of the lease in respect of one house in a tenement might lead to the loss of the protection of the Act for the whole tenement. I must also draw the noble Earl's attention to the fact that there is no restriction on the landlord as regards the date when he acquired the reversion of the lease, and, therefore, this curious position might arise. If I accepted the Amendment we might get a position which would not be tolerated under the Rent Restrictions Acts. For example, a landlord who acquired the reversion in February, 1951, or even later, would be able, by the noble
  708
  Lord's Amendment, to evict a tenant who had acquired and occupied property since December, 1950. It occurs to me that what the noble Earl is aiming at by his Amendment may be to set up a sort of qualifying period for obtaining the benefits of the Bill. If so, it seems to me a very laudable desire, but, if I may respectfully say so, entirely out of place in relation to a temporary Bill designed to preserve the status quo until long-term legislation can be worked out. The desirability of some qualifying period may possibly form the subject of inquiry by the Guthrie Committee, and if that Committee make any recommendation on the point it will no doubt be considered in connection with the permanent legislation. When that day comes in two years' time, it is possible that the noble Earl may be on this side of the House and I may be on the other side, in which case it will fall to him to deal with the recommendations of the Guthrie Committee.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. It would, perhaps, be exaggerating to say that I found it over-clear. I think he said that the position in question was not likely; but, having said that, he envisaged a situation in which fathers would assign their leases to sons—which is even less likely. I must say that I think the Bill is sloppily drafted. This is apparent, for instance, in the matter of reversion. The noble Lord spoke of a landlord who would be likely to get the advantage through having acquired the reversion in February, 1951, but there is surely no reason why a landlord should not get the reversion now. I think that in this matter the Bill leaves a great loophole which ought to be filled. The effective date should have been prior to the original introduction of the Bill in the other place; then the Bill could have been made operative for two or three years. That would have made the Bill a more effective one. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:
  Restrictions on enforcement of irritancy, etc.
  3.—(1) While, in pursuance of a lease of property in Scotland for not less than thirty-one years and terminating at an ish falling within

  709
  the period specified in subsection (1) of section one of this Act, the tenant or a member of his family is living in the property or part thereof it' shall not be lawful for the landlord during the aforesaid period—

  (b) to exercise any power conferred by the lease to resume possession of the land or any part thereof; or

  (c) to bring any action of damages against the tenant for failure to comply with any term or condition of the lease

  and any proceedings to enforce such irritancy or to recover possession in pursuance of such power or to recover such damages brought at any time between the twenty-first day of November nineteen hundred and fifty and the commencement of this Act and not finally disposed of before the commencement of this Act shall be sisted until the expiry of the period specified in subsection (1) of section one of this Act or until there is no longer living in the property or any part thereof the tenant or a member of his family, whichever first occurs, without prejudice, however, to the making of any order as to expenses.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (1) to omit "or" in paragraph (b) and the whole of paragraph (c). The noble Earl said: I beg to move this Amendment—for one reason only in view of the noble Lord's Statement.
  LORD MORRISON: I was going to ask the noble Earl whether he would agree, since this Amendment and the next two in his name on the Marshalled List are so closely associated, to handle them together.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I agree, but I propose to do little more than move them formally. There are only two points that I wish to mention. The first is that the amenities of the neighbourhood must be preserved—but that, I think, is already covered by other legislation. The second is that I want to provide for some pressure or sanction to be imposed to prevent the continuance of a bad lease. I read that it was said in the other place that in very bad cases it appeared possible for action to be taken on interdict against a tenant. I am merely asking the noble Lord now whether he is in a position to say whether or not he thinks that is possible. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 16, leave out from ("thereof") to end of line 19.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD MORRISON: I will endeavour to explain the position to the noble Earl. If his Amendment and the next one in
  710
  his name on the Paper were accepted, the result might be that a landlord by raising an action of damages and obtaining a decree, would deprive the tenant of his means and prevent him from paying the rent and fulfilling other conditions of the lease, thus enabling the landlord to obtain possession of the property. I am advised that the Amendment might thus enable a landlord to force a tenant out of the property by a "back- door" method, and so frustrate the whole purpose of the Bill. It is true that the third Amendment provides for the suspension of any action of damages by the landlord but as drafted it provides only for the suspension of proceedings where a lease has actually been continued under Clause 1. A landlord would not therefore be prevented from pursuing an action for damages in the interval between the passing of the Bill and the date of expiry stipulated in the lease. He might, therefore, be able to obtain a decree in any such action of damages before the date of expiry of the lease was reached. This, perhaps, is not the intention of the Amendment. Nevertheless I am advised that this is its effect. It has to be kept in mind that Clause 3 prevents a landlord from raising an action of damages only during the limited period of two years. In these circumstances I see little point in the third Amendment, which enables an action to be brought during the two years but provides for its suspension until the end of that period. I appreciate that the noble Earl's intention is to deter a bad tenant from allowing his property to fall into disrepair, or from contravening any other condition of the lease. I should like to point out, however, that although this Bill prevents a landlord from raising any action of damages against a tenant for any failure to comply with the terms or conditions of the lease, the landlord would have other remedies if the tenant were committing a nuisance or were annoying adjoining tenants or were using the property for purposes prohibited by the lease. The landlord, in such circum-stances, could raise an action of interdict. Moreover, if the tenant failed to implement specific obligations of the lease— for example, to keep the property wind and water-tight—the landlord could raise an action requiring the tenant to implement these conditions. It has also to be remembered that Clause 3 does not destroy the landlord's right to bring an action of damages. His right is merely

  711
  suspended, and at the end of the period of two years, and subject to the provisions of future legislation, his rights will revive.
  Apart from these arguments I must add that I cannot find any suggestion that tenants will use Clause 3 as a means of evading their obligations under their leases. The great majority of tenants actually occupy their properties and it will obviously be in their own interests to maintain their properties in good repair, since to do otherwise would merely increase their liability for repairs at the end of the two-years' period, and per-haps prejudice their chances under the long-term legislation. Further, the possibility cannot be overlooked that an unscrupulous landlord might raise an action or threaten to do so in order to bring pressure to bear on a tenant to surrender his lease. If a tenant has been a good tenant in the past, and the land-lord has had no grounds for taking action against him before the introduction of the Bill, I should think it highly unlikely that the tenant will become a bad tenant during the two years. If, on the other hand, a tenant has been a bad tenant in the past and the landlord has not made use of the remedies then available to him, the landlord ought not to complain that the present Bill will prevent him from using some of these remedies during the short interim period.
  Finally, may I thank the noble Earl for putting down these Amendments and initiating these discussions. I have endeavoured to meet his arguments, but I fear that I have not altogether succeeded, although I have done my best. To have accepted his Amendments would, I am advised, have weakened the Bill to some considerable extent, and probably endangered its further passage into law. I am sure the noble Earl does not desire that. Therefore, bearing in mind that this is only a temporary measure, with a life definitely limited to two years, and remembering also that the Guthrie Committee which will recommend permanent legislation, have already been appointed and are at work, I hope the noble Earl may now see his way to accept the position and permit the Bill to reach the Statute Book without further delay.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for his statement: I think he has answered the point I raised. I agree
  712
  that in the vast majority of cases the question of repairs is of purely academic interest, but in my view we are quite wrong in giving the tenant protection by Statute against carrying out repairs. We have recently seen letters in the newspapers on the point. This may turn out to be a more long-lived Bill than we anticipate, and I wanted to make it clear that I consider it highly unsatisfactory as at present drafted. Certainly, by reason of its limited sphere, it seems to me totally unsatisfactory as a permanent Bill. If the noble Lord will agree with me there, I am prepared, by leave of the House, to withdraw this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported without amendment.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 2), Bill read 3a.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Long Leases (Temporary Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, gives his consent, as far as His Majesty's interest is concerned on behalf of the Crown, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Bill passed.

  RAG FLOCK AND OTHER FILLING MATERIALS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order); an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  FORESTRY BILL [H.L.]
  5.3 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the contents of the Bill, is pleased to give his consent, as far as His Majesty's interest is concerned, on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, that the House may proceed therein as they shall think fit. I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(The Earl of Listowel.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  Clause 7:
  Felling directions
  7—(1) If it appears to the Commissioners that it is expedient in the interests of good forestry or for purposes connected with their duty under section one of this Act that any growing trees should be felled—
  they may give directions to the owner of the trees requiring him to fell them within such period being not less than two years after the directions have become operative as may be specified in the directions:
  Provided that, in considering whether to give any directions under this subsection, the Com-missioners shall have regard to the interests of agriculture and the amenity or convenience of any farm or dwelling-house or park occupied therewith or of any land held inalienably by the National Trust, and shall take into account any advice tendered by the Regional Advisory Committee for the conservancy in which the trees are growing
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in the proviso to subsection (1) after "park" to insert "usually." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down to meet a point that was raised on the Report stage by the noble Lords, Lord Kinnaird and Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, and also, I think, by other noble Lords, during the discussion on Clause 7. This Amendment makes it absolutely clear that, even if a park has been let by its owner to a farmer for the grazing of his livestock or for other agricultural purposes, the amenity value of timber standing on the part of the park that is let will have to be considered by the Forestry Com-missioners before they are able to issue felling directions. That is an object that I think we share on both sides of the House. Therefore, I shall be grateful for
  714
  the approval of your Lordships to this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 28, after ("park") insert ("usually").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends who took this matter up on the Report stage of the Bill, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his suggestion, which is obviously designed to meet the point raised. In view of the extreme definiteness of the noble Earl's assurance that this Amendment does meet the point, I hesitate to question the matter. I do not profess to be a lawyer but, quite frankly, I have taken some legal advice on this matter and I cannot see how the Amendment meets the point and makes the position, as the noble Earl says, "absolutely clear." No one could contend that land occupied by a farmer who has rented that land from the land owner is, in fact, occupied in connection with the dwelling-house. How the word "usually" alters the situation, I really cannot see. It may be let for a considerable period to a farmer, but you cannot then contend that it is "usually occupied therewith" in connection with the dwelling-house.
  It seems a very small point but, in fact, it is not. It is most important at this moment, particularly when we are desirous of seeing every acre of land in this country used for its proper purpose of food production, that the land owner should feel perfectly free to let his land to a farmer who may well know how to make better use of it than the land owner himself, without depriving him of the protection of this clause. I should like the noble Earl to give us an undertaking that if, in fact, I prove right, and this proposed word of his does not meet the case, then his right honourable friend in another place will deal with the matter. In this House we do not like manuscript Amendments on Third Reading, and therefore I will not propose an alteration now. I should, however, appreciate an assurance on the lines I have indicated.
  5.9 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, may I say one word on this matter? I do not profess to have followed this Bill in detail but, in spite of the explanation given by the noble Earl opposite, I have a little difficulty in understanding how his

  715
  Amendment does meet the point. I assume, of course, that he and the Government in another place mean the point to be met, and sooner or later we shall find the right words. May I ask the noble Lord to tell me what exactly is the application of "therewith"? The clause speaks of
  "any farm or dwelling-house or park occupied therewith."
  Does that mean the park occupied with the farm, or does it mean only the park occupied with the dwelling-house? It is not very easy to be sure from the words used. If what is meant is the park occupied with the dwelling-house—the mansion house—I suggest that those who assist the noble Earl might consider whether it would not be better to say "the park occupied with the dwelling-house," because otherwise the matter is not very clear.
  Of course, in respect of an estate with a mansion house, a park and farms which may or may not be let off, it is obvious that the occupier of a farm that has been let is not the person who is the occupier of the mansion house; the landlord and the tenant are different occupiers. I assume that the case to be considered is where, although the park surrounds the mansion house, as it happens the park (or part of it, I suppose), has been let off to somebody else. I must say that I feel some difficulty as the language stands. I should not have thought that to say "the park usually occupied therewith" was a very appropriate phrase. Ought it not to be "the park that is associated therewith." It is not a question of the nature of the tenure which the law recognises, because of course the tenure of a tenant is the tenure of an occupier, and the tenure of a landlord is not the tenure of a different occupier—he is both owner and occupier. I cannot think that this word "occupied" is a very happy word, and without wishing to say any more now, I should have thought, in the interests of doing what is meant to be done, that it was worth considering whether some such phrase as "associated with the dwelling-house" would not be a better way to describe it.
  5.12 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, may I add just one point? I think everybody wants the Forestry Commissioners to take
  716
  into account those trees that have obviously been planted for amenity purposes round a farmhouse or a dwelling-house. I think we are all agreed that that is what we want done. I agree fully with my noble and learned friend Lord Simon in saying that "occupied" is the wrong word. If we leave this word in, and if the landlord now has his park in hand and it is in the interests of agriculture that he should let it to somebody else (perhaps because he has reached such an age that he cannot manage it himself), he will be losing the advantage of these words. If he lets it off to a better agricultural advantage he will have ceased to be the occupier of it. That is a point which I should like the noble Earl to study. I think everybody wants to do the same thing, but I think the word "occupied" is wrong; and that it should be "associated." The avenue leading up to a dwelling-house, although it may be farmed by somebody else, is, of course, part of the amenity of that house. That is the kind of thing that we want taken into consideration, whether it is farmed by the landlord himself or is let out to somebody else. If the noble Earl will give us an assurance that that is what is intended, I have no doubt that the appropriate word can be found in another place.
  5,14 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am very much obliged to all noble Lords who have spoken. Looking even more carefully at this clause, as I have done since I heard what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, said, I do feel, speaking, of course, entirely for myself, that there may be an ambiguity here which ought to be cleared up. I can assure noble Lords that the wording will be looked at again, because the intention is that "therewith" should refer to the dwelling-house. The point must be made absolutely clear, and I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that those words will be looked at again; and if it is possible to remove this ambiguity I am certain that it will be done in another place. I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that the amenity of the farm or dwelling-house is covered by the earlier part of this clause. If he will look at the words, he will see that they are:
  "the amenity or convenience of any farm or dwelling-house."

  717
  This is something to which the Commissioners must have regard before they make up their minds about a felling direction; so that point is covered. But what we are considering in this Amendment is the amenity value of the standing timber for the park, not for the house; so, in any event, whether the parkland is let or not, any timber that is within sight of the farm or mansion, or is part of the pleasure ground, is covered in the clause as it stands.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: By whomsoever it is occupied?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Will the words cover the situation where a portion is let off and a portion is retained?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I assume that the pleasure grounds would not be let. They would be part of the immediate surroundings of the mansion, and they would not be let off for arable or other farming purposes. But any part of the park that is further from the house, and which is let for livestock or whatever it may be, would of course come under consideration from the point of view of preserving standing timber for amenity purposes, and from the point of view of the value of the sightliness of the park itself. That is the point we are on. I can immediately give the undertaking for which the noble Earl has asked. I will certainly see that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is asked (I will do it myself), to look at this point and see that the words that we have included really mean that even if a park is let for grazing purposes, or whatever it may be, any standing timber there must be considered from the point of view of its amenity value for the park, quite apart from the question of the dwelling-house, before the Commission decide to make felling direction. I think the noble Earl may feel reassured to some degree by this fact: I am told that the great majority of these leases are short leases, very often for a period of one year—at any rate, they are not leases for a long period—and there is no doubt that in all such cases the wording as it stands is adequate. But I will gladly accept the noble Earl's proposal that I should look into the matter and ask my right honourable friend to take legal advice, in order to introduce the appropriate wording in another place.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the noble Earl has given us that assurance, for which I thank him. I speak again only by leave of the House, but is this an appropriate moment to ask the noble Earl to deal with the point about policies which was raised at an earlier stage of the Bill, and particularly as to whether policies are included in the word "park."
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Earl for giving me this opportunity to say something on this point which raised a great deal of discussion during the last stage of the Bill, especially among noble Lords from Scot-land. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, who is not here at the moment, was particularly interested in this matter. I have gone into it again, as I said I would, and I have taken further legal advice. The advice I have received is that the customary interpretation of the word "park" includes a policy. If we were to put the word "policy" in this Bill the effect would be to cast a doubt upon the interpretation of the word "park" in existing forestry legislation. I think that no one wants policies to be thought to be excluded from parks in existing Statutes. I hope that noble Lords, with the assurance that the word "park" does include the Scottish expression "policy," will be disposed to accept the present wording.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 20, line 33, leave out ("under section four") and insert ("by him in pursuance").— (The Earl of Listowel.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments (privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  FRAUDULENT MEDIUMS BILL
  5.23 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DOWDING: My Lords, I have been asked to take charge of this Bill in your Lordships' House by some friends of mine who have been waiting for many years for an opportunity to secure the reform of the law as it is applied to spiritualist mediums. I will endeavour

  719
  to be as brief and concise as possible, and I will try to limit myself to essentials, being prepared to reply on any other matters which may arise in the course of debate. I should like to begin by saying that although this is a Private Member's Bill it has received the unqualified support of His Majesty's Government so far as the Home Office are concerned. The Bill has been prepared in close consultation with the Home Office staff. Its wording is that of the Parliamentary draftsmen, and the lily was finally painted in the Committee stage by two Amendments which were moved personally by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Not a word of criticism has been uttered against the Bill during its passage up to this present stage, and the Home Secretary himself has spoken of it in the warmest terms in another place. Altogether, it may be said to have been born into this House with a silver spoon in its mouth.
  The Bill has a twofold object. In the first place, as its name implies, it is designed to ensure that there shall exist penalties adequate to deter the practice of fraudulent mediumship. At present, the maximum penalties on indictment under the Vagrancy Act and the Witchcraft Act are twelve months imprisonment and/or a fine of £25. Under the Bill now before your Lordships, the maximum period of imprisonment is raised to two years and the maximum fine is increased to £500—that is to say, the time is doubled and the fine is multiplied twenty times. There is also a further small alteration in the new Bill in that it raises the maxi-mum penalty on summary conviction, as distinct from indictment, to four months imprisonment instead of three. The object of that, of course, is to give an accused person the opportunity of elect-ing for trial by jury if he so desires. In addition, the maximum fine on summary conviction is raised to £50.
  The second object of the Bill is to abate a present injustice. In the past, both the Vagrancy Act and the Witchcraft Act have proved harsh and oppressive as applied to persons claiming to be spiritualist mediums. Until comparatively recently it was Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act which was normally applied in cases of prosecution of mediums. The Vagrancy Act was passed in 1824 at a time when spiritual mediumship, as
  720
  it is generally understood and practised to-day, was virtually unknown, and Section 4 of the Act was aimed largely at disreputable persons who made a living out of the proceeds of prostitution or by other indecent or immoral methods. Such people were comprehensively classified as "rogues and vagabonds," and spiritualists have long had a legitimate grievance at being treated by the law as though they belonged to this nauseous class of society. It also includes those
  "pretending or professing to tell fortunes, or using any subtle craft, means or device to deceive and impose on any of His Majesty's subjects."
  It seems reasonable to suppose that, at the time when this Act was passed, those words were aimed at itinerant gypsies and the like—though personally I think that gypsies should enjoy the same protection from injustice as any other class; it is the intent to deceive which is, or should be, the crux of the matter. The Vagrancy Act was first invoked for the prosecution of a spiritualist medium in 1876, and thereafter mediums have been subjected to all the indignities of street arrest and of classification on a second conviction as "rogues and vagabonds," or "incorrigible rogues." It has even been maintained that the mere claim to be a medium is sufficient to establish an offence. Though spiritualists now have the assurances of the Home Secretary and of a former Lord Chancellor, Lord Simon, that fraud must be proved if a medium is to be held guilty of an offence, these assurances are in no way binding upon a court in giving judgment in a case of fraud brought by the public or by a common informer.
  I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the powers-that-be for the wise consideration which they have generally shown in their policy during the last few years. In this expression of gratitude, I think I am speaking for many spiritualists, but that is no reason why the law should not be altered so that mediums may carry on their important work by right, instead of by favour which is cap-able of being withdrawn at any time. I suppose what I have just said about the injustice of treating perfectly respectable people as rogues and vagabonds struck home to the official mind about seven years ago, and these stirrings of con-science, if such they are, were reinforced by the difficulty of proving intention to deceive. At any rate, in 1944 it occurred to somebody to revive the long-moribund

  721
  Witchcraft Act of 1735 for the purpose of prosecuting a medium. If the Vagrancy Act is unsuitable and out of date for dealing with fraudulent mediums, what shall we say about the Witchcraft Act?
  After hundreds of years of persecuting and hanging and drowning people accused of witchcraft, the authorities in 1735 suddenly became very modern and enlightened. They said, in effect, that there were no such things as witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration, and that consequently no prosecutions could be instituted for any such offence. On the other hand, if any person should pretend to exercise any of these arts, undertake to tell fortunes, or pretend by occult methods to find lost or stolen property, that person should suffer a year's imprisonment for each offence. It is reason-able to suppose that the word "pretend" was used then in its archaic sense of claim, in the same way as the Young Pretender was not a deceiver but a claimant to the Throne. This line of reasoning was excellent from the prosecution's point of view, as they did not have to prove fraud. The argument was that there was no such thing as a medium. The accused claimed to be a medium, therefore the accused was automatically guilty under the Witchcraft Act. And under the wording of the Witchcraft Act that was a perfectly sound argument. Since 1944, so far as I am aware, only two other prosecutions have been brought under the Witchcraft Act: but it is still law, and it could be brought into action again to-morrow under control less enlightened than that which we happen to have to-day. It is a bad, antiquated and tyrannous law, and its repeal is perhaps the most important object of this Bill.
  There is a widely prevalent view that fraudulent practices in connection with mediums are very common. I have a certain amount of practical experience in this connection, and in my opinion cases of deliberate fraud are very rare, constituting only a tiny percentage of the total activities of mediums, in this country at any rate. Mediums are not infrequently mistaken. That is something different. They may be mistaken for various reasons, but that does not imply that they are cheating. I know for a fact that spiritualists as a whole are exceedingly jealous of their good name in this connection and have readily concurred in
  722
  the greatly increased penalties for proved fraud contained in the Bill now before your Lordships. Equally, however, they demand that no medium shall be punished unless he or she has been proved guilty of deliberate fraud. They also put forward a strong and, I think, unanswerable claim to be released from the odious implications imposed upon them by the Vagrancy Act.
  There are one or two small provisions in the Bill which I have not mentioned. One of them is that a person shall not be convicted of an offence under this Act unless he has acted for a reward or some valuable consideration, which need not have been paid to him but may have been paid to somebody else. That means that if a medium has no financial motive in his actions, he is protected from prosecution. The Bill also contains a proviso that no proceedings shall be brought in England and Wales except by and with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is a proviso to protect mediums against frivolous accusations. I am informed that it is not necessary in Scotland, because every prosecution there is undertaken under the direction of the Procurator-Fiscal. Fin-ally, nothing in subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill will apply to anything done solely for the purpose of entertainment. If there is a stage show which either claims to be mediumistic, or leaves it open as to how these tricks are done, and it is purely in the line of entertainment, the person concerned will not be liable to prosecution. I hope that I have made it clear that the Bill now before your Lordships is clearly and simply drafted for the purpose of dealing with persons fraudulently claiming to be mediums or with mediums guilty of fraudulent practices. I confidently ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading, and I now beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Dowding.)
  5.40 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, on his Bill, which has already passed through another place without dissent, and on the prospects of its early passage into law. I do so the more readily because my own opinions do not in the least coincide with those of

  723
  spiritualists, and I have no personal confidence in the value of communication with the dead through mediums. But that is not the point. The question is whether, since there are honest and reputable people in this country who hold and teach the doctrines of Spiritualism and believe in communication with the dead through mediums, the law as it stands makes a proper provision for their rights as free men, in a free community, where we are all agreed that it ought to be lawful to hold and to promulgate any opinion, as long, at any rate, as what is advocated is not advocated for the purposes of the use of violence or to destroy the foundations of the State. I feel that most intensely, and I regard it as beyond question or dispute that in this country, at any rate, that freedom is one of the essential human rights.
  On the other hand, as the noble Lord has just said, no honest person, whatever his opinions, religious or otherwise, would wish to protect fraud and swindle. It is quite right, and indeed essential, that in this Bill fraudulent pretences, intentions to deceive and fraudulent devices, are classified as a crime, and will be a crime in this connection. Fraudulent pretence by a dishonest medium must, of course, be condemned, and I can well understand what the noble Lord has just said, with his own sympathies in this matter: that nobody feels that more strongly than the devout and genuine spiritualists and mediums in the country; and all the more so, it seems to me, because the dishonest and fraudulent medium is exploiting to his own advantage the sorrow of the bereaved and is deceiving them by pretending to put them in communication with those they have lost, when he does not really believe he has any such power. Therefore, this Bill falls into two essential parts: it protects— and I think it ought to protect—the honest practitioner; and it condemns, and condemns with increased severity, the swindler and the fraudulent person.
  To me it is shocking that we should keep on the Statute Book the Witchcraft Act, 1735. In times past there were people of the highest standing in this country who believed in witches. That great judge, Sir Mathew Hale, who in some respects was so advanced a thinker, believed in witches and punished them accordingly. But to treat an honest
  724
  spiritualistic medium as though he ought to come within the ambit of the Witchcraft Act, 1735, or to class him under an Act which is more than 100 years old as a rogue and a vagabond, is surely something of which we all ought to be somewhat ashamed. The freedom to express and to advocate your own opinions and to practise your own religion in your own way, is not only among the first of human rights but is deeply embedded in the convictions of every decent citizen to-day. The bad old days, when John Bunyan was thrown into prison because he was a dissenter and an inspired tinker; the days when Tom Payne was denounced and his name became a byword, because he wrote The Age of Reason; and the day, not so long ago, when Charles Bradlaugh was pursued and assailed because he declared himself an unbeliever—to me all those days are gone, and gone for ever. In this connection one might well proclaim the famous declaration of Voltaire, and be prepared on occasion to say: "I oppose and abominate your opinion, but I am ready to go to the stake for your right to express it and to preach it."
  I therefore have no doubt whatever that this Bill is very much overdue. Lord Dowding was good enough to refer to me in his speech. What he said related to the last occasion when I was at the Home Office. I am glad that he should remind me of it, because I re-collect his sincere concern as to how the Witchcraft Act, or the Vagrancy Act, might be used against people who quite honestly held the view of spiritualism and, as he believed, were acting in honesty and reverence. The noble Lord is quite correct in saying that I told him that the view that had long been held at the Home Office, by Home Secretaries before me (and, as I now know, it has been held by Home Secretaries after me) was that, whatever the Witchcraft Act might say, we would never encourage the police to prosecute in this class of case unless it was a case where they felt that fraud could be proved. Therefore I feel that recent practice, at any rate, has not really done much harm. But, be that as it may, it is quite wrong to keep on the Statute Book enactments which may well be understood to go much wider than that, and then to arrange that to a large extent they shall be a dead letter because

  725
  we do not mean to apply them according to their terms. It is to me a great satisfaction that we are now going to strike this ancient absurdity out of the Statute Book and substitute for it something that we really mean.
  So far as I can see, the Bill in effect does no more than establish the Home Office view. If the medium is an imposter —if he fraudulently pretends, for his own advantage, to exercise these alleged powers when he does not really think he can—then he will under this Bill be guilty of a criminal offence, as he should be, and he may be punished more severely than this antiquated law would punish him to-day. To my mind, without any of us in the least necessarily sharing the opinions which some entertain in favour of Spiritualism, we ought to pass this measure with enthusiasm. What shall we be doing? We shall be getting rid of an archaic Act of Parliament which nobody to-day would really wish to apply according to its terms, and we shall be substituting for it a carefully drawn Statute which, so far as I can see, corresponds both with the practice and the intention which are now pursued, and which ought to be the limits within which the criminal law is applied to this mysterious matter.
  5.53 p.m.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, although I feel certain that the Liberals support this Bill, since it is entirely in accordance with Liberal principles, I should like this evening to say a few words, not as a Liberal but as a Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics, being in a minority themselves, do not feel able to oppose a measure which is intended to remove certain disabilities suffered by those who belong to the Spiritualist movement in this country. I understand —and I am reinforced by what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has just said—that the provisions of the earlier Acts which have been referred to were, as a matter of fact, purely legal and were not enforced in practice. Nevertheless they were, and still arc to-day, part of the law of the land. It is therefore fitting that they should be revoked, and that Spiritualists should receive the same measure of religious freedom and toleration as is given to other religious bodies in this country.
  726
  Of course, the removal of these disabilities does not affect people belonging to my faith, since we are forbidden to take part in any activity which seeks to make contact with discarnate spirits. In case any of your Lordships may feel that a charge of obscurantism lies against the Church in that connection, I should like to add that scientific investigation of such phenomena as levitation and telepathy is permitted to qualified persons, subject to the one condition which I have outlined. The Catholic position is this. We believe that our Faith, and indeed, we hold, our reason, tells us that the soul does survive after death, and that the ultimate fate of that soul, except in very exceptional cases, cannot be known. So much for what we hold. While we feel that the legal basis of the present law against spiritualists is obsolete and absurd—and we are glad that it should disappear—we feel strongly that the penalties imposed in the Bill against fraudulent activities should be strictly enforced. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, has said, I am informed that to-day there is a considerable spread of fraudulent practices. I hope that those whom I may perhaps describe as leaders of ecclesiastical spiritualism will watch the situation most carefully. I am quite certain that it is in their own interest to do so. Finally, I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, and your Lordships that although I thought it desirable to explain briefly the Roman Catholic position towards Spiritualism, I sincerely respect the right of all my fellow citizens to hold freely their own religious convictions, and I hope that this Bill will receive a Second Reading this evening and will shortly be placed on the Statute Book.
  5.56 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had arranged to speak on behalf of the Government in this debate, but unfortunately at the last moment public business has drawn him elsewhere, and almost at the last moment I have been called on to act in his place. It would be easy for me to put in my own words what I think the Government position would be, but in view of the fact that the Lord Chancellor himself would have spoken, I had better use words which might have been used by him had he been present.

  727
  The attitude of the Government to this Bill is briefly as follows. In the first place, the Government are not concerned with what people believe, and with how they worship or conduct their religious services, so long as their behaviour is not an offence against law and order and public decency. Secondly, the criminal law should not discriminate, or even appear to discriminate, against persons because they practise any particular belief or class of belief, however unorthodox their mode of worship may be. The Government are, however, interested in seeing that the changes which these good people wish to introduce into our law, for reasons which no doubt appear very good to them, do not take away from the public the protection which our present law affords against fraud. The Government have to be satisfied that the Bill does not make it easier for ignorant and credulous people to be exploited. The promoters of this Bill appear to have recognised this fact, and the Bill seems to do little more than to restate what has for some time now been the practice of the police in enforcing the law as it now stands.
  The complaint of the spiritualist, as I understand it, is directed at the letter of the criminal law, and not now at the way in which it is administered. In 1943 the police were in fact advised by the Home Office that proceedings under the Vagrancy Act should be taken only against persons whose activities had been complained of by the public, or where there was sufficient evidence that a person concerned was an impostor or was taking money or other valuable consideration. In 1945 the police were further advised that, in order to secure uniformity of practice, they should consult the Director of Public Prosecutions before taking proceedings under the Witchcraft Act of 1735 against any spiritualistic medium.
  Since then there have been very few prosecutions for this offence. There have been none since 1945 under the Witchcraft Act. Such prosecutions as there have been under Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act have been confined to palmists, fortune-tellers, and the like. No complaint about any of these prosecutions has been made through the Government. It appears to His Majesty's Government that this Bill does not bring
  728
  about any really substantial changes in the law, but it is clear, from what has already been said about the subject in another place, that many people attach great importance to the relief which this Bill seeks to give them. The Government understand and respect the motives of the promoters of this Bill, and welcome the occasion it provides for removing from the Statute Book the Witchcraft Act of 1735, which is now an anachronism.
  6.1 p.m.
  LORD DOWDING: My Lords, the hour is late and I do not propose to say more than a very few words indeed. I thank the noble Lords who have spoken for the encouragement that they have given, and the Government for meeting our wishes so completely. I speak, of course, as a spiritualist. Two points were raised in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, which I purposely left out of my original remarks. The first was the question of religion. I know that to many people Spiritualism is very much a religion; they feel this very strongly as the core of their beliefs, and it is the pivot around which their activities revolve. But my point is that Spiritualism is not necessarily a religion; and if you deal with it entirely as a religion, you leave out a large and important part of Spiritualism. A spiritual communication is, in fact, more to be likened to a telephone than anything else; and it is a telephone of which you cannot always postulate who will have pressed Button A in the box at the other end. I only want to make the point that, although Spiritualism does include religion, it comprises a wider area.
  The other point which Lord Perth mentioned was that these ancient laws might make it possible for a defence to be made nugatory because the very claim to be a medium was an admission of guilt. It is a fact that various judges and authorities at different times have definitely held that opinion and have recorded it in writing. I shall be very glad to supply the noble Earl with instances if he is interested. Those are the only two new points that have arisen in the debate, and I hope I have dealt with them. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in support of this Bill and to your Lordships who have listened with such attention.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  NEW STREETS BILL
  6.5 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I am not claiming that this little Bill has any of the excitement of the removal of the Witchcraft Act, to speeches on which subject we have just listened with such attention. But it is a completely realistic little Bill, because it deals with mud, puddles, dirt and dust in unadopted streets. The object of the Bill is to facilitate the expeditious taking over and re-making of unadopted streets which, under present regulations, need be dealt with only when and if a local authority desire to make up these streets. I myself came across a considerable number of these unadopted streets and saw their undesirability when I was Chairman of an inter-Departmental Committee on garden cities and satellite towns, which reported a good many years ago. In the course of our visits to various parts of the country we saw the evils of the unadopted street. There is one other point which came particularly to our notice. Sometimes streets were not made up because those who had houses with frontages on these streets did not desire to spend money on their making-up, but preferred to put up with the dirt, danger and discomfort of the un-made-up roads.
  This Bill is a very small one. It puts no new charge on any individual or council where a liability already exists, but it allows for the payment in advance by the builder or owner of the frontaged property of the estimated cost of making-up the road when the time comes for the road to be made up. And it proposes to get rid of the problem which has arisen in a number of cases in which a frontager has suddenly been forced to meet a claim far beyond what he had ever expected— sometimes amounting to two pounds or three pounds a foot of frontage, when, perhaps, he believed that no such claim would lie. That is a problem which the Bill faces.
  Under this Bill, before a building is erected on a new street the owner shall, subject to certain rights of appeal, pay to the local authority or secure the payment of a sum to cover the estimated cost
  730
  applicable to his particular frontage. One other point arises here. When a new street has been half built up, the majority of the frontagers are to have the right to call on the local authority to take over and make up the street. If the money paid by the frontager is less than the proportion of the actual cost of making up the street applicable to him, when the road is made up he must pay the difference; but at least he is saved from having to pay such a large sum at an unexpected and often undesirable moment. If he has paid more than the cost applicable to him of making up the road, he will receive a rebate. If he has paid the money in advance instead of securing its payment, he has a fairly good investment, because under the Bill the local authority will pay him 3 per cent. on his money until the time that the street is made up.
  I am bound to say that—unlike the case of the Fraudulent Mediums Bill with which we have just dealt—there was in the early stages of this Bill some slight dispute in another place as regards the details, but, with the ideas inherent in an advanced democracy, we were, by a spirit of compromise and mutual understanding of the points of view of one another, able to secure complete agreement on both sides of the House in the final stages of the Bill. There was no disagreement. Indeed, one noticed that the Report stage and the Third Reading of the Bill were moved or supported alternately by Members supporting the Government and by Members supporting the Opposition.
  At this late hour, I do not think that there is any need for me to deal with the ten or eleven clauses in the Bill, except to say that in Clause 1 the compromises reached and the mutual understandings attained in Standing Committee B in another place were embodied in a number of paragraphs providing for exemptions from the Bill. There were cases in which it was felt that there should be a right of exemption. For example, the Bill is not retrospective, and it does not apply if an owner or builder can reach with a local authority an agreement as to frontage charges. Such an owner or builder is able to contract out of this Bill. It is a Bill of agreement. Then again there is the common-sense provision of a local authority being able to exempt a building which is standing alone in perhaps a small portion of a long road

  731
  which is never likely to be made up and perhaps will never need to be made up. These are the types of exception upon which agreement was reached. I do not think that I need deal with any of the other clauses of the Bill. Of course, there is a right for the Government to override an application by the majority of frontagers for a road to be made up if something in the nature of a Defence requirement makes it undesirable that such work should be undertaken. I think we may say that there is nothing contentious in the Bill, and that it is accepted on all sides as being desirable. In the hope that it will secure the support of your Lordships, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved—That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Marley.)
  6.15 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I for one am glad that the noble Lord has introduced this Bill into the House to-day. On the whole, it is a good Bill and it was certainly much improved in the course of its passage through another place. This Bill does what the best builders and estate developers have been doing for some time—it is not only the best ones who have been doing it, although it is true that many of the smaller builders have not. I believe that in one or two cases a "mushroom" kind of firm of builders have taken a price for the house which was said to include the road development charges. When, later, the company has been liquidated, or the official concerned has somehow or other absconded, the wretched purchaser, though he thinks that he has paid for that charge, in the end finds that he has not done so. These cases are comparatively rare, but they have occurred. They will not be able to occur again once this Bill is on the Statute Book.
  Whether or not those cases have occurred, there are certainly some un-fortunate people, without there being any fraud on any side, who have bought a house on a plot of land and quite genuinely have thought that that was the end of the matter. They have not realised that later on, because they are on an un-adopted road, there will be further charges imposed upon them. They may have thought that in their original purchase price they had paid all that was neces-
  732
  sary for the ground and for the house in which they proposed to live. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that in some cases it was convenient for people to have what I may call two "bites at the cherry"—to be able to pay originally just for the land and the house, and only later on to pay the development charges for the road. However, I have no doubt that they can arrange to raise the extra money required if they know how to do it, by means of a mortgage on their house. Of course, when the Bill becomes law, the money will have to be found, or a guarantee for it put up, before the building of the house is begun. Indeed, it may be some little time before the local authority decide to make up the road and adopt it, or before Clause 6 (that is, the application of a majority of frontagers) can be applied, because that can be applied, and properly applied, only when a considerable amount of development has taken place.
  There are one or two points that I consider it right to raise at this stage, because I think your Lordships should look into them during later stages of this Bill. As one or two of them are fairly substantial, it is as well that we should have them in mind at this stage. Clause 2 (4) takes away the right of an appeal to the court, and substitutes a right of appeal to the Minister against the assessed charge. Whether this is right or wrong may be a moot point, but what is not a moot point is what is summed up in the last three lines of page 3 of this Bill. In those lines your Lordships will see:
  "On any appeal under this subsection, the Minister shall give the appellant an opportunity of being heard before a person appointed by the Minister."
  That goes some way, but, of course, what is required is not only that the owner shall be heard, but that he shall have a right to cross-examine the representative of the local authority—usually the borough surveyor or somebody from his office—who has assessed either the total charges or the frontage assessment. At present the owner can always cross-examine the local authority representative on these matters.
  In passing, I would say that in some cases local authorities tend to make up these by-roads too extravagantly. In some cases they try to build them up on the frontagers' money as though they were main thoroughfares, which of course they

  733
  are not; and it ought to be permissible for the people who have to pay the bill to be able to cross-examine as to what kind of work is to be put into a road, and why the charges are, say, £3 10s., when in some other locality they work out at only £2 or whatever the figure may be. That can-not be done if only the appellant himself can appear before the person appointed by the Minister. I think he ought to have the right to put questions to the person who has made the assessment. Indeed, without that, and without having them both before him at the same time, I do not see how the person appointed by the Minister can really judge between the two parties. I think that is a matter into which we should look at a later stage.
  There is one other point about which I should like an explanation from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and that is the wording at line 7 of Clause 3. It says that when the sum has been paid or secured the person doing that
  "shall … be deemed to be discharged to the extent of the sum so paid or secured."
  I should like to call attention to the words "to the extent of the sum so paid or secured." I do not know why they are there. I thought the object of the measure was that once an owner has paid the assessed amount he has paid the necessary charge. It is true that if he has overpaid he can get back the amount of the overpayment. But if the work is put off for three or four years with the result, perhaps, that the charges go up, a second charge may be levied because the amount will be deemed to be discharged only to the extent of the sum so paid or secured. I should like the noble Lord to look at that point—I think he has grasped it. I had hoped that once the road charges were assessed and security given, the matter would have been done with, and that the man could then say "I have paid all the charges on this." It rather looks as though somebody may have an opportunity, which I at any rate should not desire, of coming back a second time, and saying, "You are under-assessed, so you have got to pay more."
  It seems to me, too, that Clause 6 is somewhat oddly drafted. Subsection (2) reads:
  "Nothing in the preceding subsection shall be taken as requiring or empowering a local authority to carry out any street works for which an authorisation is required under Regu-
  734
  lation fifty-six A of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939…."
  The general point about regulations is that they can be altered more easily than a Statute. That is why these provisions are brought about by way of regulations. The whole of this subsection drops to the ground if somebody substitutes some other regulation for Regulation fifty-six A of 1939. Although one often sees previous Acts of Parliament referred to in Bills, or in subsequent Acts of Parliament, I have never yet seen an Act hinge itself on a particular Defence Regulation. That may be a poor or a good point; I do not know. But I think it is certainly a point to which attention should be drawn. Then I see that Clause 9 says:
  "Subject to the provisions of this section, this Act shall only apply to boroughs and urban districts in England and Wales, other than metropolitan boroughs…."
  I do not know whether that means that all the metropolitan boroughs have no new streets to make. I think that may well be the case. But, at any rate, if the Bill adopts that sweeping form, one should glance back to Clause 1 (3) (h), where we find that despite what is said in Clause 9 there is included a metropolitan borough. So I think that little matter also requires attention.
  On the wider point, I am not at all sure that I like the idea of the Minister being able to apply this Act to new districts without any kind of Parliamentary control—which I believe is how Clause 9, as drafted, will operate. The Minister can do that in regard to a rural district, and I believe that it is done not by an order which is subject to either affirmative or negative Resolution procedure in Parliament. I draw attention to that matter because by this Bill we are extending to another range of people a liability to criminal prosecution, which is something for which I think Parliament ought to have some responsibility, and which ought not to be in the hands of a Minister. I have made these points because I think that this is a Bill which we do not want to hurry through. We want it to be as perfect as possible when it leaves us, and I am certain that the points I have raised are worth looking into. I have no doubt that the noble Lord who has moved the measure will agree to do so. With regard to the

  735
  general principle underlying the Bill and the majority of its clauses, I think the noble Lord can rest assured that he will have unanimous support in your Lordships' House.
  6.29 p.m.
  THE PAYMASTER - GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, in view of the very clear and concise presentation of the Bill by my noble friend Lord Marley, and of the sympathetic references by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin—though he had some criticisms to make of certain of its pro-visions—I think I need say no more to-day than that the Bill also has the good wishes of the Government. As to possible Amendments which have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, it may well be that, between now and the next stage of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Marley, Lord Llewellin and myself can have conversations regarding the points raised. The Government, as I have indicated, are sympathetic to this Bill.
  6.30 p.m.
  LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception given to this Bill, and particularly for the very thoughtful speech which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I greatly appreciate his contribution. There is only one point with which I should like to deal now. The fact that it has been raised, is, I am afraid, due to my failure to make it clear that if, when an un-adopted street is subsequently made up, it is found that the cost of the frontage to the frontager is more than the amount of money he has paid, he will have to pay the difference. The reason he will have to pay the difference is that if he does not other people will have to pay for the making up of his street. He would have had to pay that larger sum in any case at the time when the street was made up. Therefore, he is doing what the noble Lord suggested was good in reference to another part of the Bill —namely, having "two bites at a cherry." Having paid a certain sum at the time he built the house, then the frontager has to pay only a small addition when the street is made up. I am credibly informed that it is not believed that the cost of making up streets is, in fact, rising. Indeed, we now have new and more productive methods of dealing
  736
  with these new streets, and as the result of their employment the cost of making up the roads may be less than would other-wise have been the case. I will not deal with the other points which have been raised, because, as my noble friend has already indicated, they will be looked into.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to put a request to him. I know that it is not in his power to do this him-self, but will he try to press upon the Government that when this original assessment is made by local authorities they should in every case explain to the individual concerned that there may be more to pay afterwards? If this is not done, there will arise in people's minds similar misapprehensions to those which have given rise to the necessity for a Bill such as this.
  LORD MARLEY: I think that that is a most important point and I will certainly bear it in mind. These people, in my view, should be fully informed of what faces them in the future.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  PEERS AND OFFICES OF PROFIT
  PEERS AND OFFICES OF PROFIT