Sitting of 15 July 1952

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  SCOTTISH AMICABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL
  As amended, considered.
  Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended: Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  LLANELLY DISTRICT TRACTION BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
PETITION

  Opencast Mining, Wentworth
  Mr. David Griffiths: I beg to present a humble Petition signed by 2,066 constituents in the Parish of Wentworth and many miles of the surrounding district. The inhabitants of Wentworth deplore the continuance of opencast mining, and strongly hope and pray that it be discontinued at a very early date.
  The reasons are, firstly, the loss of agricultural land, and, consequently, of food production; secondly, the despoilment of scenic beauty; thirdly, the incessant noise and damage night and day, which has been disturbing residents there continuously for over 10 years; and, fourthly, and this is a very important factor indeed, that the West Riding County Council have described this area in a development scheme as of great landscape, scientific and historical value.
  The Petition concludes:
  "Wherefore your Petitioners pray that no further opencast working in and immediately adjoining the parish of Wentworth should be put into effect.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
  Petition to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

    Facilities, Dunbartonshire
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to remedy the shortage of educational facilities in the county of Dunbartonshire.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): The duty of remedying the shortage of educational facilities in Dunbartonshire rests upon the education authority. My right hon. Friend will give them all the help he can in carrying out the responsibility Parliament has placed upon them.
    Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the burgh of Clydebank alone, an allocation of building facilities has been made which is not commensurate with the house building allocation in the last period; and that, therefore, the burgh of Clydebank is in a serious position in providing educational facilities for its inhabitants? Will the Minister take steps to see that the allocations for school buildings in Clydebank are increased immediately?
    Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Member probably knows, when the schools at present under construction are completed, the situation ought materially to improve. As regards new building allocations, we are well aware of that, and we are doing whatever we can in the matter.
    Sir T. Moore: May we presume that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will not confine his attention to Dunbartonshire, because there are other equally important parts of Scotland?

    Building Programme
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total value of the educational building programme at present under construction; the comparable figures for 1950 and 1951; and the estimated figure for 1953.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The total value of the educational building programme at the end of June in each year was as follows: 1950, £7·7 million; 1951,

    1951
    £10·9 million; 1952, £12·6 million. The comparable figure for 1953 is expected to be about £12·6 million.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate what the prospects are for the completion of the programme by the end of this year?
    Mr. Stewart: I should be happy to tell the hon. Member, but I think I must ask him to put down a Question on that.

    Economies
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has had from local education authorities in Scotland to his circular calling for economies in educational expenditure.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Twenty-six out of 35 authorities have so far intimated their proposals for economies in response to the circular. The total amount of these economies, so far as they have been specified, represents a reduction of £150,000 in the expenditure which otherwise would have been incurred.
    Mr. Hamilton: Could the hon. Gentleman indicate what fraction this is of the total educational expenditure. Would he consider circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of these 26 local authorities together with details of such economies as they have made? Alternatively, would the hon. Gentleman consider sending me a copy, because I happen to be vitally interested?
    Mr. Stewart: I think I can do what the hon. Member asks in the latter part of his question. I have no actual percentage in answer to the first part but, as he knows, it would be very small in comparison with the total expenditure in Scotland.
    Mr. Hamilton: Nothing like 5 per cent.?
    Mr. Stewart: No.
    Mr. Woodburn: Would the hon. Gentleman caution education authorities not to make false economies such as would stop the proper cleaning and painting of schools at a time when painters are out on the street unemployed?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. I think that is a very reasonable suggestion.

    Art and Music (Grants)
    Mr. N. Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what grant is made by the Department of Education to the Royal Scottish Academy of Music, to the Edinburgh College of Art and the Glasgow School of Art, respectively, for the current academic year.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The grants paid by the Scottish Education Department in respect of session 1950–51 are: Royal Scottish Academy of Music, £16,903; Edinburgh College of Art, £44,674; Glasgow School of Art, £39,424. The estimated grants payable in respect of the current session are £25,612, £66,510 and £62,876, respectively.

    Accountant's Reports
    Mr. N. Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Report of the Accountant to the Scottish Education Department for the years 1947–48 was presented to him on 24th March, 1952; and whether he will accelerate such reports in future.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am aware of this delay, which has occurred because a few local authorities were in arrear with the production of their audited accounts for that year. A number of local authorities have not yet made their abstracts of accounts for later years available to my right hon. Friend, but he is doing all in his power to obtain them.
    Mr. Macpherson: Can my hon. Friend say what powers his right hon. Friend has to accelerate the rendering of these reports in due time so that they are available to Parliament within a reasonable period?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not think my right hon. Friend has any powers but he has very great influence.

  SCOTLAND

    Refuse Destructor, Clydebank (Steel)
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what increase in the steel allocation has been made since 1st June to the burgh of Clydebank for the completion of the refuse destructor.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander Galbraith): My right hon. Friend regrets that in present circumstances he is unable to increase the supply of steel for this project; but he appreciates the desirability of making progress with it as soon as possible, and will do everything he can to facilitate this as supplies become available.
    Mr. Bence: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Clydebank Structural Iron Company are prepared to deliver to the burgh at least 20 tons which they have in stock, and that they are in a position to draw upon the stocks of other merchants, in order to enable the burgh of Clydebank to continue with the construction of this destructor; but that, unfortunately, they cannot do that until they have received an authorisation from Edinburgh? Will he therefore see that this authorisation is sent forward, so that the burgh of Clydebank can get hold of this steel and get on with the job?
    Commander Galbraith: No, Sir; not at present. Steel is in short supply, and it is important that it should be used for the most essential purposes, which, in the meantime, are mainly water supply schemes.
    Mr. Bence: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that an authorisation has been given for the use of 60 tons of steel for this job, but that these 60 tons cannot be got from the rolling mills, whereas the Clydebank Structural Iron Company has steel in stock, but cannot release it from their stock without an authorisation? Will he see that an authorisation is given to release that steel in stock, because an authorisation for 60 tons has already been given?
    Commander Galbraith: I am aware of that, but it appears doubtful whether the town council will be able to obtain delivery in the third period of 1952, and we have therefore substituted an authorisation for the first period of 1953.

    Doctors, Bearsden, Milngavie and Clydebank
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of doctors in Bearsden, Milngavie and Clydebank, respectively; and the respective populations served.
    Commander Galbraith: Bearsden, with a population of 12,300, has 13 resident
    1954
    doctors of whom seven practise mainly in Glasgow. Milngavie, with 9,700 population, has four resident doctors with one assistant. Clydebank, with 44,700 population, has 18 resident doctors with four assistants.
    Mr. Bence: Is the Minister aware that the surgeries in Clydebank are packed out and that there is a quite inadequate supply of doctors in the burgh of Clydebank? Will the Scottish Health Department see whether they can improve the provision of medical services and provide extra doctors in the burgh of Clydebank?
    Commander Galbraith: We hope to improve the medical services throughout the entire country. The situation in Clydebank is practically the same as in other parts of Scotland. Comparing it with Bearsden there are 2,172 persons per doctor in Clydebank and 1,974 in Bearsden.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Is the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) asking for direction of labour here?

    Review Crops
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now state the total acreages of the various review crops being grown in Scotland this year.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): I regret that the only figures at present available are those obtained from farmers' forecasts of 4th March. My hon. and gallant Friend no doubt has these figures, but if he so wishes I will send him details. Firmer figures, from the June returns, will be available early in August.

    New Milton Farm (Dispossession Notice)
    Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why an efficient arable farmer should be dispossessed of good arable land to make way for the Department of Agriculture to conduct research into grazing, as has happened in the case of a farmer at Milton Bridge, Midlothian.
    Mr. Snadden: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the notice which the University of Edinburgh have served on their tenant to quit the farm of New Milton. The notice was served in order that the farm may be made available for

    1955
    research purposes to the Edinburgh Centre of Rural Economy (not the Department of Agriculture for Scotland). My right hon. Friend has given his consent to the operation of the notice to quit, after careful inquiry under the procedure of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949. The tenant however has the right of appeal to the Scottish Land Court and, as the time during which appeal may be made has not yet expired, it would not be appropriate at this stage for me to go into detail as to the reason for my right hon. Friend's decision.
    Mr. Pryde: Is the Minister aware that a member of this family has served on the Bush estate for generations and that the object of requisitioning is for experimenting not in arable land but in grazing? Is he aware that this farm is an arable farm and that some of us are in great doubt whether there is a statutory power on the part of the university to acquire this land?
    Mr. Snadden: The answer is that the farm is required for the Animal Diseases Research Association, but the tenant has, until 17th July, a right to appeal to the Scottish Land Court. I am sure that the hon. Member will realise that it would be undesirable for me to comment upon the matter pending any inquiry.
    Mr. Pryde: Will the hon. Gentleman not consider some other practical method of acquiring land for experimental purposes rather than dispossessing good farmers?
    Mr. Snadden: There is statutory power in existing legislation covering research.
    Mr. Boothby: Has my hon. Friend any evidence in this case that the farmer is inefficient?
    Mr. Snadden: No, Sir. There is no evidence at all, but on the other hand we have to take into account that research must go on, especially into animal diseases.
    Sir D. Robertson: Would my hon. Friend consider recommending his right hon. Friend to go north, where there is an abundance of grazing land which is not used and which would not involve dispossessing a farmer who apparently has been in possession for so long?
    1956
    Would it not be a good thing for them to carve out a farm for themselves?
    Mr. Snadden: It would not be a good thing for the University of Edinburgh to have a research farm so far away from Edinburgh.

    Social Amenities, Newtongrange
    Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department intends to take to provide social amenities in the rapidly developing mining area of Newtongrange, Midlothian.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Scottish Divisional Miners' Welfare Committee have applied for grants under the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, towards the cost of providing community centres at a number of places where coal production is expanding, including Newtongrange. Approval has been given, and grants have been offered, for five schemes where the Divisional Welfare Committee regard the need as most urgent. Resources are limited, and I cannot yet say when it will be possible to assist the Newtongrange project.
    Mr. Pryde: Is the Minister aware that this district holds the oldest charter for mining in Scotland and that amenities there are far fewer than in the more modern areas?

    Hospital Accommodation, Midlothian
    Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take to remedy the lack of hospital accommodation in Midlothian for the treatment of chronic cases of sickness among aged persons.
    Commander Galbraith: I am afraid that I cannot hold out any early prospect of increased hospital accommodation. The regional hospital board, are, however, seeking to ensure that the available beds are used to the best advantage, and valuable help to persons in their own homes is, of course, being afforded by the home nursing and home help services provided by the county council.
    Mr. Pryde: Is the Minister aware that a considerable hardship is being imposed in the mining area of Midlothian because of this lack of nursing services?
    Commander Galbraith: Yes, sir. I regret that, but I suggest to the hon. Member that perhaps the best way of dealing with this matter is by an increase in the home nursing and home help services.

    Foreign Trawler, Firth of Clyde (Incident)
    Mr. Duthieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the incident involving a foreign trawler and the Cullen seine net fishing vessel "Addisons" in the Firth of Clyde on Friday, 4th July.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am informed that while the "Addisons" was fishing 11 miles W.S.W. of Ailsa Craig on 4th July a foreign trawler approached her notwithstanding warning signals and the skipper had to haul his gear in order to avoid damage. The "Addisons" closed the trawler to explain the need for keeping clear of her gear, and the trawler skipper is stated to have been abusive.
    Mr. Peter Freeman: What did he say?
    Mr. Stewart: On receipt of a radio call the Fishery Cruiser "Freya" left Campbeltown, but before she reached the area the trawler had gone. The patrol of the area by the fishery cruisers has been intensified.
    Mr. Duthie: Is my hon. Friend aware that this molestation and abuse of our own vessels in our own territorial waters by foreign trawlers is on the increase? Will he ensure that the strongest representations are made to the Governments concerned with a request that their nationals shall behave in a satisfactory way when fishing in our territorial waters? Is he further aware that the real solution of this problem is the total exclusion of these foreign trawlers from our own territorial waters?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir; I am aware of that. The hon. Member will, of course, know that the skipper of the "Addisons" did not identify the trawler which, however, was reported to be French, and that the trawler was working outside the exclusive fishery limits, and as no damage was reported it is difficult to find any grounds for definite action.
    Mr. Duthie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is a common practice for
    1958
    foreign trawlers to obscure their numbers so that there is no risk of detection?
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Could my hon. Friend confirm or deny the statement that the abuse consisted of the statement, "You English are no good for anything except to win wars; we are here to catch fish," thereby hurling a double insult?

    Duke Street Prison, Glasgow
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is intended to demolish Duke Street Prison, Glasgow, in order to make this valuable site available for housing development.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The use of Duke Street Prison is under review, but I cannot say when it may be possible to demolish it.
    Mr. McInnes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is almost 20 years since this prison was condemned, that it is the most obsolete and costly prison in the British Isles, that 80 per cent. of its accommodation remains unoccupied throughout the year, and that the time has now arrived when some concrete proposal ought to be made, particularly since one should bear in mind that it costs anything from £8 to £10 a week to keep an inmate in that prison?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir, I agree. Duke Street Prison is obsolete and unsuitable, and we would be very pleased if we could remove it and put something better in its place.

    Maternity Beds, Lanarkshire
    Mr. Timmonsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the shortage of maternity beds in Lanarkshire; and what are the prospects of some extensions at Bellshill.
    Commander Galbraith: I am aware that there is considerable pressure on the maternity beds at present available in Lanarkshire. The regional hospital board intend to provide some 60 additional beds by converting a lightly-used fever hospital, but I cannot say how soon it will be possible to put the necessary works in hand.
    Mr. Timmons: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the very serious situation particularly at Bellshill? Is he

    1959
    further aware that I recently had a complaint from a constituent of mine who, after having had a child, had to lie in a corridor, and would he get in touch with the administrative people at Bellshill to see whether it is possible to get additional pavilions there?
    Commander Galbraith: Unfortunately, Bellshill Hospital is not regarded as suitable for expansion, but the conversion of Wester Moffat Infectious Diseases Hospital is going ahead.

    Water and Sewerage Schemes, Outer Hebrides
    Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland which water supply schemes in the Outer Hebrides have been, or are being, developed without sewerage schemes.
    Commander Galbraith: For the areas of five water schemes the county councils concerned have not so far submitted definite proposals for public drainage schemes, or have provided or proposed such schemes for only parts of the areas. These schemes are: Borrosdale and Northton, in Harris; Lochboisdale to Daliburgh (South Uist), and Balallan and Eye Peninsula, in Lewis.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in Sutherlandshire considerable embarrassment has been caused through water supply schemes going ahead without sewage disposal schemes going on at the same time, and perhaps a word from him to the other local authorities to be on their guard against that mistake might be very helpful?

    Forestry, Outer Hebrides
    Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Forestry Commission refuses to undertake planting in the Outer Hebrides and other areas where smaller acreages of planting for shelter belt, amenity, employment and general social reasons is desirable.
    Mr. Snadden: The Forestry Commission are prepared to undertake planting in areas where soil and climatic conditions are suitable for timber production. Conditions generally in the Outer Hebrides are not favourable for the growth of trees, but the Commission have two small experimental plantations in Lewis and are carefully watching the results of this experiment.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is extremely difficult to interest the Forestry Commission in shelter belt planting, for example, in agricultural areas or in any scheme smaller than, say, 300 acres, and would he bring the powers of the Secretary of State to bear upon the Commission and persuade them to interest themselves a little more in the social problems as well as in strategic and large-scale economic planting?
    Mr. Snadden: While sympathising with the hon. Gentleman on shelter belts, I am sure that he will appreciate that this is really an agricultural matter and that grants are available within the Hill Farming Act for that purpose.

    Herring Processing Plants
    Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland at which places in the West Highlands and Islands the Herring Industry Board intends at an early date to establish plants for oil and fishmeal processing.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Herring Industry Board have a plant in operation at Stornoway, and proposals for the erection by the Board, at Government expense, of a plant at Ullapool are now being examined.
    Mr. MacMillan: While we appreciate all the work of the Herring Industry Board in this connection, may I ask whether the Joint Under-Secretary is aware that this suggestion would be an ideal solution to the problem in places like Barra and Uist, where there is no possibility of a revival of fishing if the fishermen have to cross the Minch every time they have a catch at the expense of at least a day's time and a good deal of fuel each way? If they had a fishmeal and oil plant on the island it would lead to a solution of the problem. Will the hon. Gentleman get the Secretary of State to bring pressure to bear in support of such a scheme?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not subscribe to that view, because the catch of herring in those areas is quite insignificant and would not justify the setting up of a plant. A much better plan would be to get a good efficient plant set up at Ullapool.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the fishermen there are discouraged from going to sea because they cannot get an economic market for their catch, whereas if they had a fishmeal and oil plant on their own island they would have a market on the spot and a guaranteed price?

    Fish Transport Charges Scheme
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the flat freight rate scheme for fish will be introduced.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: No draft of such a scheme has yet been published by the White Fish Authority.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that the promise that such a scheme for a flat rate would be introduced has been outstanding for some time, and that this is a matter of the greatest importance to fishermen in Scotland? If some such action were taken it would be of the greatest assistance to the fishing industry and to the reputation of the Authority.
    Mr. Boothby: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that this proposal is included in the Report of the White Fish Authority? We have been talking about it for months and nothing has happened. What is my hon. Friend doing about it? It is a matter of the greatest urgency.
    Mr. Stewart: We are doing what we can about it, and I hope that we shall very soon be able to make a statement.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Is it hoped to have the scheme presented to Parliament before the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister realise that he has had ample time to deal with this problem and that it is now the subject of a report by the White Fish Authority? He ought to be in a position to give a concrete answer to the House.
    Mr. Stewart: I am sure the hon. and learned Member will not have forgotten the constitutional procedure involved here. This is a matter essentially in the first place for the White Fish Authority who, in due course no doubt, will present some scheme to the Secretary of State. We have not yet reached that point.

    Circus, Glasgow (Animal Act)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the mauling by a tigress of an elephant in a circus at Glasgow on 25th June; and whether, in view of the natural antipathy that exists between the species concerned, he will institute proceedings against the circus proprietors, of whose name he has been informed, for cruelty contrary to the provisions of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. L. Clyde): I have caused inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the incident at the circus performance in Glasgow on 25th June last. Following on the incident, the animals were examined by an inspector of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and there was no sign of injury to either. Further, within an hour, both animals were examined by a veterinary surgeon who certified that there was no sign of injury to either of them and that they were both quite settled. He further certified that he had seen the act since, both in public performance and in training, and saw no evidence that the animals' normal relationship during the performance had been in any way altered. Consequently, there is no evidence to warrant proceedings being taken for a contravention of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act, 1912.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Lord Advocate aware that according to the Home Office, Mr. Chipperfield, who owns the circus, was registered for the first time for the training of this act on 24th June of this year—the day before the incident took place? Does he agree that a day is sufficient time for the training of these two animals in this particular performance? Secondly, is he aware that Mr. Johnson, who is supposed to be the trainer, holds no certificate for training but only for exhibiting to the public. Thirdly, if he agrees that there is no cruelty in training these animals, has he investigated the type of weapon that is used, of which I have an example here?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an abuse of Question time. Other hon. Members have Questions to put.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Surely it is perfectly legitimate and in

    1963
    order for me to put three supplementary questions which arise directly from the answer which has been supplied?
    Mr. Speaker: I have to protect other hon. Members from too long supplementary questions.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. I have put three supplementaries to the Question which I have on the Order Paper. Surely I am entitled to an answer to those three supplementary points? I should like your Ruling on that, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member would sit down he would probably get an answer.
    The Lord Advocate: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to answer this Question. None of the three supplementary questions arise out of the original Question, but if the hon. Member would be good enough to supply me with the offensive weapon and with any of the allegations which are made against these people, I should certainly undertake to investigate the matter.
    Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. Is it proper to bring a lethal weapon into the Chamber?
    Mr. Speaker: It is not proper to bring a weapon of any sort into the Chamber. I cannot tell whether or not the object which the hon. Member has is a weapon. I have ruled on the point of order. I cannot distinguish the instrument from here.
    Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that quite recently at Craigend Castle Zoo, Milngavie, a boy, Henry McMurtrie, was severely mauled by a leopard and lost an arm as a consequence? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the necessary steps to see that sufficient means are provided at this particular zoo to protect visitors from the possible attentions of these animals?
    The Lord Advocate: I have power to interfere only if there is a breach of a statute; but I shall certainly look into the case to which the hon. Member refers, and if there is any breach of the provisions of that statute of 1912 I shall certainly take up the matter.

    DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Pensions the number of totally disabled ex-Service men who are unemployable; and the average weekly payment made to them.
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): The number of ex-Service men receiving from my Department pensions at the total disablement rate and also the unemployability supplement is 16,170; the average weekly payment made to them is approximately £6. This will shortly rise to about £6 5s. with the improvements about which I told the House on 9th July.
    Mr. Paling: Can the Minister say how these figures are divided between the First and Second World Wars?
    Mr. Amory: I am afraid I cannot do so without notice. The figure which I have quoted is the average of all pensioners in both wars. If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I shall be very glad to supply an answer.
    Mr. Driberg: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether totally disabled men who have become temporarily unemployable through having to go into hospital for treatment for a few weeks receive a special allowance equivalent to the unemployability allowance?
    Mr. Amory: No, Sir. The unemployability allowance is paid only for a protracted period of unemployment. When a pensioner is in hospital and unable to work he receives a treatment allowance equivalent to 100 per cent. and, if he is in receipt of unemployment benefit, I think that he also gets sickness benefit under the National Insurance Scheme.
    Mr. Driberg: In that case, how does his position compare with the others?
    Mr. Amory: It would be better if the hon. Gentleman put down a Question on that point, because it is rather a complicated matter.
    Mr. Oliverasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will now consider amending the existing regulations to admit of the provision of motor cars to disabled ex-Service men who have lost both legs below the knees having regard to the hardship caused to these men in getting to and from their places of employment.
    Mr. Amory: I regret that in present circumstances I can hold out no hope of an extension of the existing arrangements for the provision of motor cars to seriously disabled pensioners. I am always prepared to consider providing the pensioners in question with motor propelled invalid tricycles if they are unable to use public transport in order to obtain or retain employment.
    Mr. Oliver: In some cases tricycles are completely inadequate for the purpose of getting to and from employment. Will the hon. Gentleman see whether he can exercise any discretionary power to see that when a motor car is the appropriate vehicle for the person concerned he shall be granted one?
    Mr. Amory: Fortunately most of those with double amputations below the knee are fairly mobile, but if their injuries are such that they are to all intents and purposes immobile and have lost totally or almost totally the use of their limbs, they would be eligible for consideration for a motor car.
    Mr. Mellish: Would the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again? We know his generous approach to these matters. He will know that there are a number of cases which, because they do not conform to the regulations, although they are in fact immobile unless they wear special supports, causing great pain and discomfort, do not qualify for a motor car although they do for an all-weather car.
    Mr. Amory: I should be delighted to look at any evidence which anybody can give me that our present arrangements are inadequate.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is there still a waiting list for motor cars in respect of double amputees above the knee?
    Mr. Amory: The numbers on our waiting list are just about equal to the number of motor cars which we expect to get in the near future.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Deserters
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War how many of Her Majesty's Forces were, on 31st December, 1945, and on each succeeding
    1966
    31st December, absent from their units; how many of these, though not proved to be dead, were then and are now unaccounted for; and how many have, and how many have not, been traced to civil life.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): On 31st December, 1945, there were 17,317 men still unaccounted for who had deserted from the Army during the late war and 1,043 who had deserted since 31st August, 1945. On 31st December, 1951, the corresponding figures were 10,432 and 3,556. I will, with permission, circulate the figures for the remaining years in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister agree that the fact that so many men for so many years have remained unaccounted for is contrary to good order, and cannot he devise some means whereby these men can return as good citizens?
    Mr. Head: I have given this matter a good deal of consideration. The vast majority of the numbers referred to as deserters in the last war are either in Ireland or elsewhere overseas. The remainder have now settled down in civilian life, possibly under assumed names, and the fact that crime may be attributable to them is not borne out by the evidence available to me.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the Minister's answer mean that since the war there has been a reduction of some 4,000 in the number of deserters all told? In other words is it correct that 4,000 have been re-captured and recovered in some way?
    Mr. Head: Yes, Sir. My figures show a reduction of nearly 7,000 since the war.
    Following are the details:

    NUMBERS IN A STATE OF DESERTION FROM THE ARMY ON 31ST DECEMBER, 1946 TO 1950, INCLUSIVE.

    Date

    Deserted during the late war

    Deserted after 31st August, 1945

    31st December, 1946

    14,791

    1,902

    31st December, 1947

    12,912

    2,003

    31st December, 1948

    11,106

    3,002

    31st December, 1949

    10,615

    3,183

    31st December, 1950

    10,558

    3,129

    Prison Sentences
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War how many of those members of Her Majesty's Forces now in prison were sentenced for crimes of turpitude and how many for Service offences; how many of these offences were proved to have been caused by domestic trouble in the lives of the offenders; and if he will take steps to review these cases.
    Mr. Head: The latest available figures show that, as a result of conviction by Army courts-martial, 83 men are now serving sentences of imprisonment in this country for offences of a purely Service nature, and 87 for other crimes. How many of the offences were caused by domestic trouble is to a large extent conjectural but, where domestic trouble is pleaded in mitigation of offences, special consideration is always given to the circumstances.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State remember the Army (Suspension of Sentences) Act of 1915 which, after the First World War, authorised the suspension of sentences and had a very good effect? Would he consider putting something like that into effect now?
    Mr. Head: All court-martial sentences are periodically reviewed, and in a large number of cases they are suspended.

    Court-Martial Sentences (Review)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War if he will now reconsider and differentiate the cases of Her Majesty's Forces sentenced for crimes of turpitude from those sentenced for Service offences, during the war and since, by courts-martial; and if he will take steps to provide an amnesty in suitable cases, so that as many as possible of those persons may be restored either to the Forces or to civil employment.
    Mr. Head: All sentences awarded by courts-martial for crimes of a civil or Service nature are periodically reviewed and sentences are frequently remitted or suspended. As regards the latter part of the Question, I think the hon. and learned Member will agree that the suspension of a sentence on review is similar in effect to his proposal of an amnesty in suitable cases.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister agree that a great many evils arise from the present state of affairs? Can he not devise some means whereby they can be obviated?
    Mr. Head: The present state of affairs arises from the committing of offences which are punished. I appreciate that it is important periodically to review the sentences, but I think that entirely to obliterate them would have a very unfortunate effect.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Can the Minister say why it is that Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to be so lenient towards ex-Nazis, many of whom they are releasing, and why they will not extend to our own people the same kindness and the same generosity that they are extending to our enemies?
    Mr. Head: The question of the treatment of ex-Nazis is outside my sphere of responsibility. I am concerned to see that men in the Army get a fair deal, both in courts-martial and when their sentences are reviewed.

    Metal Scrap Salvage
    Commander Scott-Millerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the amount of metal scrap left lying at the ex-War Office ranges at Holme and Titchwell; and whether any steps have yet been taken towards its salvage.
    Mr. Head: At both these sites there are two tank hulls and a small quantity of used anti-tank ammunition. It has proved impossible to salvage the two tank hulls at Titchwell owing to flooding by the sea. Removal of the remaining scrap is in hand.
    Commander Scott-Miller: May I take it that the salvage of this material has now been handed over to the Ministry of Supply? May I also ask my right hon. Friend, in view of the fact that it has taken over five years for this much-needed scrap to be salvaged, whether he will make sure that there is no other War Office scrap lying around the country which might be salvaged in that way?
    Mr. Head: We are doing our best to hand over all possible scrap to the Ministry of Supply for salvage. As a matter of fact, the salvage of this particular

    1969
    scrap was started some time ago, but was abandoned when the sea came in through the sea wall.

    Military Activities, Korea
    Mr. Goughasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Commonwealth Division in Korea during the past month has been subject to any heavy enemy offensive attacks; and whether he is in a position to inform the House of the maximum weight of any such attack on any one day in terms of total number of troops used and total number of shells expended.
    Mr. Head: No, Sir. Between 22nd and 25th June there was a slight increase in patrol activity of platoon or company strength. In the last fortnight of June there was also an increase in enemy artillery and mortar fire, which reached its peak on 20th June, when about 507 artillery and 89 mortar shells landed in the Commonwealth Division sector.

    Royal Artillery (Z Reservists)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War to what extent length of service is taken into account in the selection of Z reservists of the Royal Artillery for call-up for training.
    Mr. Head: The principle of last out, first back is always taken into account; but suitability for particular jobs and geographical considerations must often override this principle. Furthermore, the Royal Artillery is particularly short of younger reservists.
    Mr. Swingler: If the policy of last out, first back, is always taken into account, why is the Officer-in-Charge of Royal Artillery Records sending out letters to gunner reservists saying that it is not taken into account in the Royal Artillery on the ground that every Royal Artillery reservist will be required on mobilisation, and therefore it does not matter? Will he look into this question so as to see that the policy applies to the Royal Artillery as to other branches?
    Mr. Head: It does apply to all units in the British Army, and if the hon. Gentleman will show me any concrete evidence that it is being contravened I will put this right at once.

    C.O.D. Donnington (Working Hours)
    Mr. Ian Harveyasked the Secretary of State for War the working hours of soldiers at the Central Ordnance Depot, Donnington; how much recreational time is allowed them a week; and how these conditions compare with those of civilians similarly employed at this establishment.
    Mr. Head: Those on clerical duties work 41¼ hours a week and those on industrial work 42½ hours. The corresponding hours of work for the civilian staff are 40½ and 44. Out of working hours, facilities for sports are available.

    Casualties, Korea (Treatment)
    Mr. Burdenasked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements exist for the treatment of British troops wounded in Korea.
    Mr. Head: The Commonwealth Division has the normal three field ambulances and one field dressing station for light cases. Casualties are then evacuated to a mobile Army surgical hospital. Thence, when fit to travel, they go by air to the 29th British General Hospital in Japan. From there, serious cases are brought to this country by air, while the remainder pass to a convalescent training depot before returning to duty.
    Mr. Burden: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in addition to that, where no facilities of our own are immediately available, it is advisable and feasible for American facilities to be called upon in an emergency?
    Mr. Head: Yes, Sir, that is indeed so and I should like to take this opportunity of saying that the British Forces in Korea owe a great debt not only to the Americans but to the Canadians, the Indians and the Norwegians for their co-operation in this respect.

    Military Hospital Services
    Mr. Burdenasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make an inquiry into the whole question of military hospital buildings and hospital services in general, with a view to making improvements.
    Mr. Head: I am very well aware that much work is needed on hospital buildings, but there are many civil and other

    1971
    military claims on the limited resources available. The main problem in the hospital services is the recruitment of sufficient Regular R.A.M.C. officers, and I am examining this question.
    Mr. Burden: While I fully appreciate the difficulty of the position, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not a fact that the last military hospital built, as such, was built in 1895? Is it not time that something was done in order to try to build a modern hospital for the military services?
    Mr. Head: We have plans in that respect at present. A hospital was built later than the date which my hon. Friend mentioned but I am well aware that, if the facilities were available, much should be done.

    Connaught Military Hospital (Dietician)
    Mr. Burdenasked the Secretary of State for War if the establishment at Connaught Military Hospital now includes a dietician.
    Mr. Head: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Burden: While I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask whether he has received any reports to show whether the diet at the Connaught Military Hospital has improved as a result of this step?
    Mr. Head: I cannot give my hon. Friend a categorical answer at present, but the object of the appointment is to that effect.

    N.A.A.F.I. Parcels Scheme (Korea and Malaya)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for War the estimated saving to relatives of men serving in Korea and Malaya in postage, and air freight, for parcels delivered under the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute's gift scheme.
    Mr. Head: Relatives in this country save 2s. 3d. on a 4 1b. parcel that would normally be sent by sea to Korea: the saving on a parcel by sea for Malaya is about 9d. As against despatch at letter packets by air, the savings are three guineas and £3 1s. 6d.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend realise that a great deal more
    1972
    money would have been saved by parents and relatives if a little more publicity had been given to this scheme by the N.A.A.F.I.?
    Mr. Head: I am anxious that this scheme should have all the publicity it deserves, and I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for having initiated it.
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for War how many parcels have been delivered in Korea and Malaya, respectively, during the month of May under the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute's gift parcel scheme.
    Mr. Head: In May instructions for the delivery of 220 parcels were passed to Korea and of 59 parcels to Malaya. The totals up to 12th July were 749 and 245, respectively.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend realise that I have no further supplementaries to ask?

    Officers' Messes (Dinner Jackets)
    Mr. Royleasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that officers reporting for duty as Z Reserve officers at Lulworth Camp, Dorset, are instructed, in the absence of mess uniform, to wear dinner jackets in the mess; how far this order is general in all Z Reserve camps; and if he appreciates the embarrassment caused to officers who are not in possession of such clothing.
    Mr. Head: Existing instructions provide that on no occasion shall the wearing of a dinner jacket be obligatory for officers, and the commanding officer of this unit has been reminded of the fact.
    Mr. Royle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of these officers, an officer with distinguished service throughout the war in Burma, had to eat out at a local café every night to avoid embarrassment, and that another one was asked not to attend on guest nights lest the absence of a dinner jacket should create a ticklish position? Is it not rather ridiculous that any commanding officer should insist on this?
    Mr. Ellis Smith: It applies to more than the Army.
    Mr. Head: I have been into this question, and six officers dined in the

    1973
    mess dressed as I am now at the present time. As regards the ticklish position, perhaps that referred to wearing battle-dress in hot weather.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are far more stuffed shirts in the Labour Party than at Lulworth Camp?

    Anti-Aircraft Defence (Searchlights)
    Mr. Ian Harveyasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now dispense with the searchlight as a means of anti-aircraft defence.
    Mr. Head: We do not at present propose entirely to dispense with the searchlight since recent trials have shown that it still has a certain part to play in defence against low altitude attack at night.
    Mr. Harvey: In the light of that answer, will my right hon. Friend draw to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Air the necessity for having the right kind of aircraft for training, because he has already said that training for searchlights has a low priority?
    Mr. Head: Perhaps my hon. Friend's supplementary question will clarify the matter.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the whole method of operating searchlights would be more efficient if it were handed over to the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Head: That is a subject for wider debate than is possible now.

    Light Aid Detachments
    Mr. Ian Harveyasked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are made for the training of Light Aid Detachment personnel under the Z scheme.
    Mr. Head: The majority of the Light Aid Detachments in which Z reservists are being trained are carrying out their training with the units to which they are normally attached. A few detachments are being trained under Command arrangements by R.E.M.E.

    WAR MEMORIAL, PLYMOUTH HOE
    Mr. Footasked the Secretary of State for War whether the proposed new war memorial on Plymouth Hoe is to be constructed on that part of the Hoe which is held by his Department for military use; and what military use these acres have been serving in recent years.
    Mr. Head: The proposed new war memorial is to be constructed on that part of Plymouth Hoe which was leased to the Plymouth Corporation for 99 years. The bulk of the area occupied by the Army is used for a coast defence centre.
    Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that the question whether this memorial should be proceeded with is entirely a matter for the Plymouth Corporation because his Department has nothing to do with it whatsoever?
    Mr. Head: My Department never had anything to do with this war memorial. The recommendation was made by the Admiralty to the I.W.G.C., who referred the matter to the Plymouth City Council, who agreed to the scheme, and the I.W.G.C., acting as agents on the Admiralty's behalf, is proceeding with the memorial.

    OFFICIAL CAR SERVICE
    Mr. Profumoasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about the Government car service.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): Substantial savings have been made as a result of instructions I gave on taking office to reduce the use of chauffeur-driven cars in London by Ministers and officials. Out of 712 such cars in the Government car service and other Departmental car pools in London and the provinces last October, 61 had been put down before the end of March. On 1st April my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works began to gather into one pool all chauffeur-driven cars except those used by the Post Office and the Foreign Office. This process, and the economies which will result from it, are not yet complete, but a further 75 civilian cars have been given up and the Headquarters of the Service Departments in

    1975
    London have returned 41 Service cars to their units. The annual saving to the taxpayer from these measures is over £100,000.
    Mr. Profumo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply makes complete nonsense of the ludicrous contention of the late Government that the provision of a private car and chauffeur for every Minister at the taxpayers' expense was an essential part of Government service?
    Mr. Stokes: Will the Prime Minister say whether any allowance is made for a Minister who uses his own car whilst on duty, and, if so, what? Any monetary allowance?
    The Prime Minister: I gave a great deal of attention to this matter, but I really do not understand the point.
    Mr. Stokes: May I make it clear to the Prime Minister? If Ministers, having lost their cars—their official cars—use their own private cars in carrying out their duties, is any monetary allowance made to them for that?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think so. It never occurred to me that such a thing—[Interruption.] It never occurred to me that such a practice would develop, but I will certainly inquire into it. I do not think it is so.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: May I ask the Prime Minister, first, whether he could give details in the OFFICIAL REPORT of this saving of £100,000; second, whether account is taken of allowances which would be paid to civil servants who use other forms of transport if there is no car available; and third, whether he is aware and does not agree that this saving does not really give any criterion of the real saving effected—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—because it probably follows that hundreds if not thousands of civil servants waste their precious time travelling by other means which take them far longer so that their valuable time and the Government's is wasted to a considerable degree?
    The Prime Minister: We have made a very considerable effort in this matter—admittedly, in a small scale—and it has caused a lot of inconvenience to those who have been directly affected by it. They have been glad to subject themselves to that inconvenience in order to enforce
    1976
    an attempt to curtail the rank, exuberant and wasteful expenditure that obtained under the previous Administration.
    Mr. Wigg: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply, and in view of the fact that a special train was used by him at public expense during the General Election in 1945, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    PIT PONIES (SLAUGHTER)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that 1,656 horses and ponies employed in mines were destroyed by the National Coal Board when brought up because of unfitness or old age in 1949; that 1,415 were destroyed in 1950; that these are apart from those destroyed as a result of accidents underground; what supervision by Government inspectors exists of the way in which these horses and ponies are slaughtered by the Board above ground; whether he will arrange this matter to be considered by the inquiry into the Rosebery Report recently announced by him; and whether the question of the provision of homes of rest for industrially-employed horses may also be included in the terms of reference of the inquiry.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I have been asked to reply.
    Pit ponies when no longer fit for work in the mines are, in accordance with the Coal Mines Act, either placed in reputable rest homes or humanely destroyed. There is no power under the Act for an inspector to supervise such destruction, but the National Coal Board arrange for it to be done on their premises by a competent person and under supervision by their officials. I understand that a statement will be made on Thursday about the review of the Rosebery Report.
    Mr. Freeman: In view of the fact that these young ponies are taken down the mines at a very young age and are there for 12 or 15 years without the light of day and amidst the dirt, darkness and heat, does the right hon. Gentleman not think they deserve some special consideration, rather than going to the knackers' yards as, in effect, they do now?
    Mr. Lloyd: The Regulations under the Coal Mines Act were reviewed and brought up to date in 1949 after a very careful review by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), who consulted the Pit Ponies' Protection Society, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the National Equine Defence League, who agreed.

    ECONOMIC SITUATION (RE-ARMAMENT)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Prime Minister if he will consider laying a White Paper before this House again debates the economic situation, setting out the principal changes which it is intended shall follow from the recently announced policy of putting exports before defence requirements and, in particular, the estimated effect of this change of policy on home supplies.
    The Prime Minister: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) for postponing till tomorrow the similar Question which he had put down yesterday. I hope he will allow me to answer both Questions together.
    It is not proposed to lay a White Paper. The relationship of exports to defence requirements will be dealt with together with other aspects of the economic situation during the debate on economic matters which will, I hope, take place before the House rises.
    Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the fundamental change in policy which the statement of the noble Lord in another place last week indicated, does the Prime Minister not think that this House ought to have been simultaneously informed? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that many of us welcome this return to economic sanity whereby economic solvency is put before military schemes?
    The Prime Minister: It seems to me that the hon. Member has very little to complain of.

    DEAN OF CANTERBURY
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government will move in both Houses of Parliament for the establishment of a
    1978
    tribunal to inquire into a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the behaviour and conduct of the Dean of Canterbury in furthering and disseminating the propaganda of persons engaged in hostilities with British troops and in claiming that he had proof of the truth of such propaganda.
    The Prime Minister: The establishment of such a tribunal would, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, invest the activities of the Dean of Canterbury with an importance they do not possess.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, while no one would seek to prevent the Dean from, as a private individual, expressing views which he has a legal right to hold, it is a cause of dismay to millions of people living behind the Iron Curtain to believe, as they do, that he speaks on behalf of the Church of England in this country, and that there lies the danger?
    The Prime Minister: We all see those difficulties, but there are other difficulties in taking special action. The difficulties of setting up a tribunal upon an individual in these circumstances for exercising or abusing the right of free speech, which we are all resolved to defend, would be almost endless. We really must keep a sense of proportion and not add to the harm that has already been done.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would my right hon. Friend consider sending this pathetic figure to a psychiatrist?
    Mr. Driberg: Does the Prime Minister further realise that the logical consequence of the pressure to which he is being subjected from the benches behind him would be a demand from the Church of England for disestablishment?
    The Prime Minister: I think we might easily all get into depths beyond any that we wish to dabble in today by going further in this matter. Free speech carries with it the evil of all foolish, unpleasant and venomous things that are said, but on the whole we would rather lump them than do away with it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,
from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 186.

Division No. 208.]

AYES

[3.32 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Fraser, Hon, Hugh (Stone)

Maude, Angus

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Maudling, R.

Alport, C. J. M.

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

May don, Lt.-Comdr. S L. C

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Mellor, Sir John

Arbuthnot, John

Gammans, L. D.

Molson, A. H. E.

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

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

Geoge, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)

Godber, J. B.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Nicholls, Harmar

Baker, P. A. D.

Gough, C. F. H.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Cower, H. R.

Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

Baldwin, A. E.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Nugent, G. R. H.

Banks, Col. C.

Grimond, J.

Nutting, Anthony

Barber, Anthony

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Oakshott, H. D.

Barlow, Sir John

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Odey, G. W.

Baxter, A. B.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon N.)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

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

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, E.)

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Partridge, E.

Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

Hay, John

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Heath, Edward

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Bennett, William (Woodside)

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Pickthorn, K. W. M,

Birch, Nigel

Hirst, Geoffrey

Pitman, I. J.

Bishop, F. P.

Hollis, M. C.

Powell, J. Enoch

Boothby, R. J. G.

Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Bossom, A. C.

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Profumo, J. D.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Horobin, I. M.

Raikes, H. V.

Braine, B. R.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Rayner, Brig. R.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Redmayne, M.

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Renton, D. L. M.

Bullard, D. G.

Hurd, A. R.

Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

Burdon, F. F. A.

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

Robertson, Sir David

Butcher, H. W.

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

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

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Roper, Sir Harold

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Jennings, R.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Cary, Sir Robert

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Russell, R. S.

Channon, H.

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Kaberry, D.

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Keeling, Sir Edward

Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

Cole, Norman

Lambert, Hon. G.

Scott, R. Donald

Colegate, W. A.

Lambton, Viscount

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Shepherd, William

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Cranborne, Viscount

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

Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

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

Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Linstead, H. N.

Snadden, W. McN.

Crouch, R. F.

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

Soames, Capt. C.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Stevens, G. P.

De la Bére, Sir Rupert

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Stewart, Henderson (Fife E.)

Deedes, W. F.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Digby, S. Wingfield

McAdden, S. J.

Storey, S.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

McCoroquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Drayson, G. B.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Drewe, G.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Studholme, H. G.

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Summers, G. S.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Maclean, Fitzroy

Sutcliffe, H.

Duthie, W. S.

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Teeling, W.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E

Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

Erroll, F. J.

Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Finlay, Graeme

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

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

Fisher, Nigel

Markham, Major S. F.

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R F,

Marples, A. E.

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Fort, R.

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Tilney, John

Foster, John

Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

Touche, Sir Gordon

Turner, H. F. L.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E)

Turton, R. H.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Wills, G.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Wellwood, W.

Wood, Hon. R.

Wade, D. W.

White, Baker (Canterbury)

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Major Conant and Mr. Vosper.

NOES

Adams, Richard

Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

Poole, C. C.

Albu, A. H.

Hamilton, W. W.

Porter, G.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Hargreaves, A.

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Proctor, W. T.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Hayman, F. H.

Pryde, D. J.

Awbery, S. S.

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

Rankin, John

Bacon, Miss Alice

Holman, P.

Reeves, J.

Balfour, A.

Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Houghton, Douglas

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Bence, C. R.

Hubbard, T. F.

Rhodes, H.

Benn, Wedgwood

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Benson, G.

Hughss, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Beswick, F.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Bing, G. H. C.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Ross, William

Blackburn, F.

Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)

Royle, C.

Bienkinsop, A.

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

Blyton, W. R.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Bowles, F. G.

Janner, B.

Short, E. W.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Brockway, A. F.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Keenan, W.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Kenyon, C.

Slater, J.

Burke, W. A.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Burton, Miss F. E.

King, Dr. H. M.

Sorensen, R. W.

Callaghan, L. J.

Kinley, J.

Steele, T.

Champion, A. J.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Clunie, J.

Lewis, Arthur

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Cocks, F. S.

Lindgren, G. S.

Swingler, S. T.

Coldrick, W.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Sylvester, G. O.

Collick, P. H.

Logan, D. G.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

MacColl, J. E.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

MoGhee, H. G.

Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

Darling. George (Hillsborough)

McInnes, J.

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

McLeavy, F.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Deer, G.

MacMiHan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Thurtle, Ernest

Dodds, N. N.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Timmons, J.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Tomney, F.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

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

Viant, S. P.

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

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

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Manuel, A. C.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Wells, William (Walsall)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Mayhew, C. P.

West, D. G.

Ewart, R.

Mellish, R. J.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Fernyhough, E.

Mitchison, G. R

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Follick, M.

Monslow, W.

Wigg, George

Foot, M. M.

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Morley, R.

Wilkins, W. A.

Freeman, John (Watford)

Moyle, A.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertitlery)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

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

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

Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'H'y)

Glanville, James

Oldfield, W. H.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

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

Oliver, G. H.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Greenwood, Anthony (Rassondale)

Padley, W. E.

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Greenwood, Rt. He. Arthur (Wakefield)

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Granted, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Wyatt, W. L.

Grey, C. F.

Pannell, Charles

Yates, V. F.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Parker, J.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Paton, J.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Pearson, A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glanvil (Colne Valley)

Peart, T. F.

Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wallace.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CIVIL LIST BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.43 p.m.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The Bill, as hon. and right hon. Members know, is founded on the Resolutions which were discussed last week for a very considerable time and in very great detail. I do not think that it is necessary for me, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, to cover all that ground again today. The facts are well known. The Bill gives the increases set out in the Schedule, and there is available to all who wish to study the matter the Report of the Select Committee. I think, therefore, I can best serve the purpose of the debate by saying a few words on matters of detail which appear in the Bill, and to which, I think, the attention of the House should specifically be drawn.
  The first point arises out of the third paragraph of the Preamble to the Bill. The opening phrase of the paragraph on the second page is:
  "… forasmuch as it is happily to be expected that Your Majesty's reign will last for many years, …"
  That is a pleasant echo of the words:
  "Happy and glorious,
  Long to reign over us."
  The remainder of that paragraph applies to certain new supplementary provisions with which I want to deal shortly.
  In paragraph 17 of the Select Committee's Report on the Civil List, we draw attention to one particular respect in which this Civil List and its proposals will represent a departure—and perhaps a departure of real substance from all the precedents. Perhaps I may be allowed to put it shortly in this way. Hitherto there has always been a kind of compensating relationship between Class I of the Civil List, that is, the Privy Purse, and Classes II and III, which are the salaries and expenses of the Household.
  What has happened in the past has been that if Classes II and III, that is, the salaries and expenses of the Household, have shown a deficit in any particular year, as, in fact, they did—those who wish to see it will find it in the Appendix
  1984
  to the Select Committee's Report—during the last six years of the last reign it was the practice for that deficit to be made good from Class I, that is, from the Sovereign's own Privy Purse; and conversely, if Classes II and III have shown a saving, as they did in the first nine years of the last reign, that saving was passed automatically to the Privy Purse to be disposed of at the Sovereign's discretion.
  As I say, both happened in the last reign. There were deficits on the one and savings on the other. Those savings arose out of not spending the full total of Classes II and III, and they have in the past proved to be a very convenient way by which the Sovereign could make some provision for those members of his family, particularly the grandchildren, for whom Parliament had not made specific provision because, among other reasons, all the future cannot be foreseen.
  It is that precedent which this Civil List alters. We are saying—and this is referred to in the Preamble—that, given the uncertainties of what we all trust will be a very long and happy reign, it is no longer reasonable to expect the Privy Purse to make good the deficits which may arise, as they have done in recent years, on Classes II and III of the Civil List. Therefore, we propose in the Bill, as will be seen in the Schedule, to include in the Civil List itself a margin for contingencies. That is described in the Schedule as Class V, Supplementary provision.
  But we are saying something more than that. We are saying that if the Privy Purse has not to make good the deficits, if it should be insulated from the effects of these deficits, then it should no longer also receive the savings. It cuts both ways, if I may use a colloquial phrase. Therefore, any saving that may occur on Classes II or III or, indeed, any savings on the contingencies margin itself should not automatically go to the Privy Purse but should be transferred to the Royal Trustees to be applied by them to meet any deficits in a manner which I will explain.
  The result of all this is that it is quite possible that at the end of the reign, as the result of this arrangement, the Trustees may find themselves holding considerable sums of money. The question, therefore, is: What is to be done with

  1985
  these accumulated sums, should there be any? Clearly, that is not a question which we here today ought to attempt to answer. I think that the Select Committee was quite right when, in its Report, it said that this must be left for Parliament to decide.
  Paragraph 17 of the Report says that the question is for:
  "… Parliament to decide as part of the arrangements connected with the Civil List provision for the next reign in the light of all the circumstances of the time."
  It follows from what I have said that what money the Royal Trustees would then be holding would, in effect, be money which, if we had followed previous precedents, would have passed to Class I, and, therefore, Class I would have been available to the Sovereign as a means of providing for other members of the Royal Family, particularly her grandchildren. Although we are not, in Tact, following that precedent, for what I think are good and sufficient reasons, it will be for Parliament at the beginning of the next reign, when it comes to consider the Civil List for that monarch, to consider very carefully the disposition of the moneys then held by the Royal Trustees.
  I thought it was worth saying that, in order that it might be on the record of Parliament as being what is today the intention of Her Majesty's Government in putting forward these provisions, which have the full support of the Select Committee.
  As to the Bill itself, I do not think I need trouble to refer to any of the first eight Clauses, because they merely put into greater detail and into legislative form the Resolutions which we have already discussed. They deal with the various financial provisions of the Civil List itself. Clause 8 is the normal charging provision.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is there any provision for the Duke of Windsor in the eight 'Clauses to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and how is it made?
  Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman had read the Bill, he would have seen that there is no mention of that.
  Clauses 10 to 14 are purely technical Clauses, though I should like just to refer to Clause 13 (1), which has been drafted
  1986
  to give effect to the Amendment, which I proposed to the Resolution and which was unanimously agreed to by the Committee, raising the annual possible increase of Civil List pensions to £5,000.
  That leaves Clause 9, and this is the only one which I think I need explain in any detail, because it is the one which enshrines the new precedent to which I have already referred. We have taken very careful thought as to how best to do it. I will run through it shortly. Subsection (1, b) deals with the supplementary provision—that is, the new Class V of the Civil List—and provides that those who are traditionally the Royal Trustees—they are described in Clause 10; they are the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day and the Keeper of the Privy Purse—shall be responsible for making the necessary arrangements for dealing with that fund.
  But I imagine that, following upon the recommendations of the Select Committee and the views which were reported in paragraph 15, the first task of the Royal Trustees would be to arrange to make available to Her Majesty that element of the contingencies fund, which we said might well be up to an annual limit of £25,000, to be placed at her disposal to able her at her discretion to contribute towards the unavoidable expenses of members of the Royal Family for whom no financial provision is otherwise made.
  Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: It might help to clarify the position if I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman now. There does not appear to be any reference in Clause 9 to the £25,000. Will the right hon. Gentleman say under what authority Her Majesty is to have free discretion to use that as she wishes?
  Mr. Crookshank: The Trustees have discretion for making the arrangements, and I think that it is as a result of their passing it over to her that it does not require legislative provision. If I am wrong in that, this is only the opening speech of the debate and my right hon. Friend can give the answer when he winds up the debate. My understanding was that it was within the discretion of the Trustees as a result of their being empowered to make necessary arrangements for dealing with the fund.
  After that, it will be the duty of the Trustees to apply the balance of the

  1987
  margin so far as it is necessary—that is to say, the £70,000 out of the £95,000—to any deficits which arise on Classes Il and III. We make it quite clear in the subsection that the deficit is only a deficit on audited expenditure. The Trustees cannot receive the protection of Class V unless the audit reveals that there was a deficit.
  Subsection (1, b) also provides that, in so far as the contingencies margin is not needed for the purpose which I have described—that is, not needed for making up the deficit—then it shall be handed over to the keeping of the Trustees to be accumulated by them to meet deficits in subsequent years.
  If the general estimate which the Select Committee made with regard to these problems is more or less correct in this present year of grace, I think that we could expect that in the earlier years the greater part of the £70,000 of the supplementary provision would be saved and handed over to the Trustees for accumulation in that way. That was the point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) made in the debate the other day when he said that the £70,000 is simply a margin and that, therefore, the true figure of the Civil List for this year is not £475,000 but £405,000. I am very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for establishing the point so clearly.
  Clause 9 (2) provides that if, instead of the contingencies margin having to be used in any year to cover a deficit on those two classes, Classes II and III show a saving, then that saving will not, as under the precedent of the previous Civil List, go to the Privy Purse, but will also go to the Royal Trustees to be added to their accumulated funds. That is putting into terms the arrangements which were outlined in the Preamble.
  Clause 9 (3) looks to the possible eventuality in a later period—one cannot, of course, foresee how everything will work out—that in any one year a deficit on Classes II and III, the salaries and the Household expenses, could not be met by the contingencies fund and that, after that had been used up, there was still a deficit on the annual expenditure. Clause 3 looks to that eventuality if it should ever occur. The Trustees would then have to
  1988
  make good the deficit in that year from their accumulated funds.
  Sir Herbert Williams: My right hon. Friend said "Clause 3" Did he mean that?
  Mr. Crookshank: I meant subsection (3) of Clause 9. I am talking about Clause 9 all the time.
  Mr. R. R. Stokes: It is quite clear to me.
  Mr. Crookshank: I do not think it was quite clear and I am glad that my hon. Friend interrupted me, because I want to make this clear beyond peradventure.
  The point is that, under subsections (2) and (3), if there is a deficit and if the contingency fund is not big enough to close that deficit, then recourse must be had to the accumulated funds. Subsection (4) is for the convenience of the administrative Trustees and enables them to make advances for subsequent adjustment. Subsection (5) is a normal paragraph which allows the Treasury to vire as between Classes II and III.
  Subsection (6) mainly provides, as I have already pointed out, that any moneys which the Trustees hold at the end of the reign shall be dealt with as Parliament may hereafter determine. That, of course, is to be read in the light of what I said earlier in my speech, and that is that Parliament may have to decide to what extent and by what means provision should be made for members of the Royal Family at that time for whom provision had not been made during the reign, and for whom Her Majesty would be debarred from making provision owing to the fact that the Privy Purse in the past had sources of accumulations for that purpose.
  I hope that is clear to hon. Members. It is rather a complicated and forbidding-looking Clause, but I am quite satisfied that it carries out the general intentions of the Select Committee, as I understood them, being a member of it, and I hope, therefore, that it will be agreeable to the House as a whole, though again I would point out that it is a complete break with precedent.
  The Bill, therefore, does nothing more than give effect to the Resolutions, which have already been fully debated, in language which is, I hope, as clear

  1989
  and simple as a complicated matter of this kind permits. I trust that the dispositions which this Bill makes for the Sovereign and other members of the Royal Family with whom it deals are fully in keeping both with the dignity of the Crown and with its constitutional relationship with this House. It is in that confident belief that I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.2 p.m.
  Mr. R. R. Stokes: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, whilst desirous of making adequate provision for the maintenance of the Royal Household and the dignity of the Crown, cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Civil List Bill which contains no proposal for a review, from time to time, by a Select Committee of this House, of the appropriate level of expenditure for this purpose, and of its allocation as between the personal expenditure of the Royal Family and the cost of purely State ceremonial and activities."
  I shall deal with the points which the Lord Privy Seal covered, particularly in regard to Clause 9, a little later in my speech. I rise to move this Amendment on the understanding, after consultation with you, Mr. Speaker, that the moving of the Amendment will not narrow the debate in any way, and that any right hon. or hon. Member in any part of the House will be free to make what we term a Second Reading speech.
  In speaking this afternoon I shall endeavour to be short and to avoid needless repetition. The right hon. Gentleman said that we discussed this matter very fully last week, and I do not wish to do more than recapitulate the main reasons why we have put down our Amendment, why we want this further investigation, and why we think a 10-year term is a reasonable term. I wish to add two points of personal explanation and to ask the Minister for a clarification of two points in the Bill.
  We on this side of the House agreed that the monarchy should be run in such a way that it is run efficiently and properly and in keeping with tradition, but the reasons we think that a Committee of this House should make further investigations are the same as we endeavoured to outline both in the Select Committee and in the discussion last week in the House.
  1990
  They are, first because everybody recognises, and we all hope, that the reign is going to be both a long and a happy one. When I say "a happy one," I hope that it means a peaceful one as well. Nobody knows how things will change. Nobody has the slightest idea what is going to happen in another 50 years, and we think it appropriate that after the Select Committee of this House has examined the matter, perhaps not in a cursory manner but in rather a short time, we should go further and have a review in view of the very long period that will elapse before a further examination takes place.
  The second main reason was very ably put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) last week, and it is this. It is all very well to say that we can trust the monarchy to do what is right. Nobody disputes that for a moment, but anybody who has had anything to do with this sort of thing knows perfectly well that there are difficulties. It is true that in matters of this kind Her Majesty might well be relieved of some of the burden, which she might hesitate herself to suggest, and it is unfair that it should he left to her to have to decide.
  Thirdly, our opinion is that times have changed, even in this House, I was listening the other day to a speech by Lord Samuel, in which it was said that top hats were absolutely the thing in this House not so very long ago. Today they merely look rather ridiculous, though it is pleasant to see them on the tops of the heads of those hon. Gentlemen who choose to wear them. In my researches in this matter, I have studied what was said in previous debates. Of course, times have changed.
  If anybody would like to study what I might call a racy effort, I would refer them to the speech made by my late lamented friend, Mr. Jack Jones, on the Civil List Bill, 1937. I do not propose to quote it because it is not entirely appropriate for me to do so, having regard to my celibate position. But there it is. Times do change, and we think, therefore, that we should be given an opportunity of considering the possibility of change and of making sure that such provision as is made is in keeping with the times.

  1991
  The fourth reason is that we feel—and I speak with a little knowledge of these things as a former Minister of Works—that there might well be further transfers to Departmental Votes so as to reduce the Civil List altogether. I refer particularly to the upkeep of the Palaces, Royal Mews, etc. I recollect that my friend Mr. Jack Jones, on that famous occasion, referred to the fact that we were paying £300 to the man to look after the King's swans. My friend asked why we could not let the swans look after themselves. I do not know how much of that sort of thing continues, but it is another reason why there should be a close investigation.
  The fifth reason for asking for this committee of examination is that the whole procedure might well be simplified and made what we call more democratic. Some of my hon. Friends on this side have criticised the garden parties. Many of us have been to them. I am always sorry for the Queen, but let us admit that there is a great deal of snobbery about them. One of the things which certainly could be done, were there such a committee, would be to consider whether on these occasions access might very well be greatly broadened. There are many people who would like access of that nature to Her Majesty, and I cannot see why it should not be possible. I do not suppose that it will be unless the House of Commons tries to tackle the matter and do something about it. I will not go into details, but there are all sorts of ways in which one might try to tackle it without having any desire to interfere with the pleasure of the young ladies attending those functions.
  There is gross misunderstanding about how this money is spent. Some people think that this Civil List of £475,000 is given to the Queen herself. We all know that that is not so, but the position is grossly misunderstood in the public Press. I would advise hon. Members not to take too much notice of what was said during the weekend. One paper announced that a bottle of whisky was put aside every night for the monarch, that Jenkins or somebody else went off with it in the morning, that the members of the staff dropped in and had a meal at the palaces when they liked, and that the total of staff of all types at Windsor and at Buckingham Palace added up to more than
  1992
  twice the number told to the Select Committee. That sort of thing is absolute nonsense, and should not be put about, because it only misleads the public. I hope nobody will take any notice of it at all.
  There is a story told about Queen Victoria and port wine, and probably the story about the whisky stems from it. When she was a girl she was ordered a glass of port wine each night and a bottle of port was put on the royal table for this glass. That went on from 1838, when it was ordered, until somewhere about 1859. It is doubtful whether Her Majesty ever took it after she was about 20 years of age. Probably the bottle of whisky nonsense comes from that story. This is another reason why it is important that matters should be investigated so that we might be completely satisfied that there is no nonsense of that kind.
  Mr. James Hudson: I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me for interrupting him, but does he seriously suggest that nobody should take any notice, even if it were not quite true, of a story about the placing of a whole bottle of whisky every night for the use of one person? Does he expect me to take no notice? It is a matter which ought to be taken quite seriously in a debate of this sort.
  Mr. Stokes: My hon. Friend mistakes me. I never suggested that no notice should be taken of it. I was suggesting that we cannot take notice of it if the whisky is not there. It is an untrue story. I quite understand my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for temperance, and up to a point I agree with him, so long as it does not apply to me. That is true of many things in this life. All I can say is that when I was Minister of Works I investigated this matter when I was discovering some of the things for which I was supposed to be responsible. The story is without foundation. The most extravagant stories get about and they get wide publicity. It is most unfair to the Royal Family.
  The second point is that the present Civil List should not be borne for more than 10 years. It is a reasonable suggestion, and I cannot understand why reasonable Members on the Government side of the House do not agree with it. I have said already that times change

  1993
  and that this arrangement ought to be reviewed every 10 years, which, after all, is a long time. I have only been in this House for 14 years and I have had a couple of reviews, if not three. It seems to have come out all right. Such a system of reviews admits of the maximum of flexibility. There might be considerable economic changes in the course of the next 50 years.
  We all talk about a 50-year reign. We all hope that Her Majesty will reign at least as long as Queen Victoria, but that will be a long time, and the House of Commons should be free to look again at these arrangements if it wants to do so. Why should we bind ourselves for the whole of one very long reign? We should avoid too great a rigidity in this matter. We should preserve for ourselves an opportunity of looking at it again if we want to do so.
  Thirdly, our Amendment holds out the possibility of a re-examination of many of the points regarded as important by a not unsubstantial minority of Members on this side of the House. Presumably all of us stand for the preservation of the rights of minorities, whilst not necessarily accepting their points of view. Why should this minority not have its views taken into consideration? Quite possibly the minority is right. The arrangement for a 10-yearly review will give them confidence that if there is anything wrong it will be revised.
  Fourthly, a 10-yearly review would reassure people that, as time elapsed, no barnacles would gather on the bottom of the boat. I am satisfied from what I have done so far, and from what I have looked at, that there are not very many barnacles. I can honestly say that, so far as I know, there are none, but there always are stories about barnacles, which grow very quickly once they get a hold, or so my nautical friends tell me. Unless we satisfy ourselves on this matter, some of the irregularities which happened in the past may happen again. A 10-yearly review would make sure that the bottom of the old boat got scraped and that there were no barnacles. [Interruption.] I do not say that in a disrespectful way. I am sure that hon. Members will understand what I mean.
  Fifthly, this plan makes possible revision in other directions. I do not know what is going to happen if prices rise.
  1994
  Presumably Her Majesty will have to go through the distasteful function of coming to the House of Commons and asking for more. Equally, prices may drop. We have been assured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that prices are going rapidly down, but I do not know whether that is going to work out right or not. I hope so. For a long period no one will know what will happen. The proposed periodic review would give automatic readjustment.
  The Select Committee admittedly did not have time to go into every detail. How could they, especially on this very important question of lightening the burden on the Queen? That is all related to what can and what cannot be dispensed with. The idea of the majority of the Committee apparently was that Her Majesty will say what shall be cut away. We take a different view. We think that it would be easier for Her Majesty if we could say what could be dispensed with without embarrassment to herself and with a lightening of her load.
  I would add my support to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South on the importance of so arranging things that the Queen really gets a holiday. I well believe that a Select Committee might help to do that, with the co-operation of the Royal Household. Those of us who have had to occupy positions of responsibility, even for a short time, know what an absolute pest official papers can be. [Interruption.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this has nothing to do with the Bill. I am speaking to our Amendment, and am explaining why we want a periodic review and why we would like a 10-year review. I cannot think that what I am saying is out of order, although it might not be of interest to the right hon. Gentleman. I was saying that I can sympathise with Her Majesty about this non-stop pestilence of despatch boxes and the like.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why?
  Mr. Stokes: Some of us do not stay in office very long, but the Queen goes on for ever. If this is to be a long reign, she is not going to be able to get real relief. That is not a situation that ought to be tolerated. Something ought to be done about it.

  1995
  I come to one point of personal explanation about Princess Margaret. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in the attitude which he took in the Select Committee that Princess Margaret should be made quite independent and free to marry whomsoever she likes. I perfectly appreciate the point of view of those who fear that after making provision she may marry a foreigner. I hope she does not do that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] There are lots of eligible bachelors here.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: On a point of order. Is it not the custom in this House that when any Member has an interest, he shall declare it?
  Mr. Stokes: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for interrupting. I think it is now perfectly clear that I have suffered the martyrdom of bachelorhood for many years. There is no doubt about it. I agree with my right hon. Friend that Princess Margaret ought to be free to marry whomsoever she chooses, and that it ought not to depend upon her having to marry the richest man. Our annual taxation is such that, omitting a few rather exceptional persons, there is practically nobody here who has enough to run her—if that is the right phrase. Be that as it may, I support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—
  Dr. H. Morgan: Speak up; we do not want to lose it.
  Mr. Stokes: I do not think I had better go on with that point. It may become rather personal.
  Now may I turn to the Bill for a moment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not accept that anything I have said has been irrelevant; some of it may have been unnecessary. I want a little more clarification from the Chancellor, when he winds up the debate, on Clause 9 (1 b). It is idle to say that we said in the Select Committee that £25,000 of the Class V vote of £95,000 should be at the disposal of Her Majesty for certain operations. When pressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South just now, the Leader of the House said that no doubt the trustees would give the necessary authority as to how that money is to be disposed of.
  1996
  It is not clear in the Bill, but in fact, can a statutory body do anything which this House does not specifically authorise them to do? Will not that be the difficulty, that they have no discretion and that there is no clarification in this Clause as to how that money is to be dealt with? We doubt very much whether the Bill as drafted will cover the intentions of the Committee. However, I do not want to labour the point, and if the Chancellor will answer it when he speaks or will deal with it on a later stage, that will satisfy me.
  My second point relates to Clause 9 (2), which says, not that the Treasury shall direct
  "that out of the appropriations to those classes an amount equal to the excess be transferred,"
  but that it may direct. The Leader of the House, when speaking earlier, used words which seemed to indicate that the Treasury "shall." Which does it mean— "may" or "shall"?
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): Both.
  Mr. Stokes: It means both? Well, we should like to have some clarification later. I want to say, in conclusion, that we on this side want the job done properly. We want to ensure that there is not only the utmost economy today, but that the Royal Household shall continue to be run with the utmost economy. Do not make any mistake. People in the country have the wrong impression. They feel that all this money goes to the Queen. They do not realise that 85 per cent. or 90 per cent. of it is used in carrying out the functions of State. The more often that is said, and the more clearly it is understood, while at the same time ensuring that there are no barnacles gathering, the better from the point of view of everybody.
  There is no criticism on this side personally of the Royal Family, whom we all respect and, if I may say so, love in the true sense—not in the sloppy, sentimental manner of some people. We shall divide against the Bill on its Second Reading only because we think it is utterly unreasonable that the two proposals we made should not have been accepted and incorporated in the Bill.
  4.24 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: I propose, in one respect, at any rate, to follow the excellent example of the two right hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me, and that is to be very brief indeed. Having said that, I have the greatest difficulty in following the speech just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). He is always vigorous, always attractive and, as a rule, he is logical. But on this occasion I have never known anything quite so illogical as the speech to which we have just listened from the right hon. Gentleman.
  His last words, speaking not only on his own behalf but on behalf of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House, were that he had no criticism to make of the Royal Family or of the way in which the money agreed to by this House in Committee is being spent at present. Then he said that there had recently been a close investigation into that expenditure, to which he himself had been a party. We all remember with pleasure the part he took in the ceremony with which we opened this new Chamber. Without doubt he likes ceremonial and pageantry, and quite rightly. It is necessary that we should have some better form than we usually go through so that we can enjoy life a little more. He himself has always expressed that view and carried it out.
  Mr. Stokes: I did not say a word against pageantry.
  Mr. Davies: I realise that. That is why I have the greatest difficulty in following the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Mr. Stokes: My trouble is that I do not like barnacles.
  Mr. Davies: I cannot understand that, but I will come to it. According to this Amendment the Opposition are desirous
  "of making adequate provision for the maintenance of the Royal Household and the dignity of the Crown."
  Quite rightly, and not merely because of the traditions and customs that have to be maintained but because of the part that the Crown and the Royal Family have to play not only in this country but throughout the Commonwealth and Empire. It must be remembered that today the Queen is not merely Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but of
  1998
  every one of the Commonwealth countries and of the Empire as well, and that it is essential in the view of everybody that the dignity which goes with the Crown must be maintained adequately and properly.
  What is being said at present, however, is that, although we have had an adequate investigation into the expenditure, there is to be from time to time a new inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that it should be every 10 years. I do not know where he gets that, except that it was mentioned during the Committee stage. The Amendment says that from time to time all this has to be gone through again—
  "…a review, from time to time, by a Select Committee of this House, of the appropriate level of expenditure for this purpose, and of its allocation as between the personal expenditure of the Royal Family and the cost of purely State ceremonial and activities."
  If it is necessary for such a review to be undertaken, one can be perfectly certain that the Government of the day and the House at the time will make that review. I cannot understand the purpose of this Amendment. No House can bind its successors. It is no use our saying, "You shall have a review from time to time," or "You shall have a review in 10 years' time." The next Parliament that meets, perhaps even next year, can alter that. If it is necessary to have a review, one can be certain that it will be made.
  May I take an instance from one part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman? Supposing, perchance, a disaster occurred in our economic position. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman envisages that there shall be no change in what we have decided in Committee should be the expenditure until the time for the review comes. In that case, what is to happen in the meantime? [An HON. MEMBER: "What happened in 1931?"] If it had been necessary to have a review at that time, this House was quite capable of making it. If anything does go wrong, this House or any hon. Member of it can ask for an inquiry and we can then go into the whole matter. What has really been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends is that we should have a kind of quinquennial valuation of the work done by the Royal Family.
  Mr. Stokes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is really not being just to us.

  1999
  What we have provided for—by agreement if you like—in the Bill is a contingency fund which will accumulate and which will be dealt with. There is no necessity to accuse us of wanting to make the Queen go short. We do not want to do that at all.
  Mr. Davies: May I end by referring to the last thing which the right hon. Gentleman said? He said, "We want to make proper provision. It is being made in this Bill, but we intend to divide the House tonight." If the right hon. Gentleman's party succeed in the Division this Bill would become a nullity and no provision whatever would be made. I cannot imagine anything more illogical, and that is why I began by saying that I had never heard such an illogical speech made by anybody, and certainly not by the right hon. Gentleman.
  4.32 p.m.
  Sir Robert Cary: I am sure that everyone appreciated the completely fair and objective way in which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I am also sure that no one could object to the good-tempered and amusing way in which the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) moved his reasoned Amendment. I recall some of the observations made during other Civil List discussions by the late Mr. Jack Jones, and in recalling them it seems to me rather amazing that he was not promptly ruled out of order.
  Regarding what the right hon. Member for Ipswich said about modifying some of the procedure of the monarchy, I should have thought that in our time we would rather want to bring as many citizens as possible into contact with the monarchy, and that, far from modifying such occasions as the Royal Garden Party, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, we would want to bring a wider range of our people to such functions.
  Mr. Stokes: Surely the hon. Gentleman could not have listened to what I said. What I was trying to say was that we should open the door wider and have a much greater variety, and, if necessary, more people.
  Sir R. Cary: Surely if we were to open the door wider that would not modify
  2000
  expenditure. What we have to do, I think, is to extract from the sum of £475,000 which we are being asked to vote the maximum economy, while allowing the monarchy to discharge all its functions. I have no doubt that some provision could be made by Parliament in order to provide Her Majesty the Queen with a holiday from some of the great duties which she is called upon to perform. In the Report of the Select Committee on the Civil List, the hope is expressed that in future, instead of the long, elaborate journeys of other years when Royal visits were paid to the countries of the Commonwealth and to the Colonies, the King's Flight should be used on such occasions.
  I detected in the speech of the right hon. Member for Ipswich the possibility that we should attempt to drive the monarchy almost into the position where all its functions would be taken away from it and its expenses transferred to Votes. It was almost what was said by an hon. Member during the Committee stage last week when the opinion was expressed that members of the monarchy should be treated rather like highly paid civil servants. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had that in mind in moving his Amendment, but at any rate that was the view expressed last week by at least one hon. Member opposite.
  Mr. Stokes: I did not say that at all, and I never had it in mind.
  Sir R. Cary: In stating some of the modifications he would like to see brought about in the expenses of the Royal household, I rather suspect that the right hon. Gentleman was implying that we might ultimately drive too much of those expenses on to the Votes which come before this House. Surely it is in the interest of the country that the Royal Household should remain a Royal Household, and that there should be that sense of personality and leadership vested in it.
  Ours is a great Royal House, and we should remember that the monarchy in this country is the last great surviving monarchy spread over years of world history. Therefore, I should have thought that our mood ought to be not to attempt to cut down and to modify, but to preserve the monarchy and to extract from the Royal Household a future even greater than its past.

  2001
  In a parallel direction, I think one of the saddest things when travelling through our countryside is to see all too often on the estate office door of a large mansion the symbol of the limited liability cornpany—Keddleston Estates Limited, Chatsworth Estates Limited—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it not the fault of the owners of such mansions in forming limited liability companies in order to escape Income Tax?
  Sir R. Cary: Some of the regrettable aspects of the supposedly wise legislation of this House of Commons have driven individuals to expedients of this sort in order that they may survive. I think this House of Commons made a great mistake years ago in applying such heavy Death Duties.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I do not think that what was done years ago has anything to do with this Bill.
  Sir R. Cary: I think I had better leave that point.
  In dealing with Clause 9, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was at pains to explain to us that on the supplementary provision of £95,000 which appears in the Schedule a necessary diversion of £25,000 will be made which will leave the sum of £70,000 for contingency account. I should like my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, when he replies, to say whether, if there is a surplus in the contingency margin of £70,000 a year, and if, say, at the end of six years there is a surplus of £420,000, the Royal Trustees could direct that money to be used, thus practically covering the whole of this vote of £475,000 in any particular year.
  It seems to me that we are not voting the sum actually named in this Bill. In the supplementary provision, £25,000 is taken away and placed at the direction of Her Majesty. That leaves a sum of £70,000 which it is hoped might be transferred to the coffers of the Royal Trustees named in the Bill. It would appear, therefore, that in four, five or six years' time quite a substantial sum of money will be in the hands of the Royal Trustees. If, unlike most of our fears and prophecies at the present time, surpluses could be obtained by wise economy and good management in the Royal Household, the
  2002
  saving might be added to the figures I have already given.
  I am sure that the right hon. Member for Ipswich would be the first to agree that the national manifestation of loyalty which surrounds the Throne today has never been stronger. It is not a calculated or an exaggerated loyalty. It seems to spring almost effortlessly, quite naturally, from the mood of the people. It would be a most happy proceeding today on the part of this House if, at the beginning of a reign such as this one, it were to allow the Bill to reach the Statute Book without any single revision being recorded against any of its particulars.
  4.41 p.m.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The hon. Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary) seemed to follow rather easily into what seems now to be becoming a habit: to use the speech of the hon. Member for Silvertown, as I think Mr. Jack Jones was at that time, as a standard in a debate of this character. It would not be uninstructive to the hon. Member and to the House if, perhaps, we went a little further back and remembered the time when his own party were carrying cheeseparing to a fine art in their attack upon the Civil List in the time of Queen Victoria, when she tried to make provision for her husband. I think that on all sides of the House we are now all agreed that we want to make adequate and, I would go so far as to say, generous provision for the members of the Royal Family; and on this side of the House we yield to nobody in that.
  It is not often in this House that we have the opportunity to discuss the position of the monarchy among our institutions, and it is fitting that very shortly we should, therefore, give expression to the feelings that we have about it. Personally, I am quite satisfied that the very great majority of the people are in favour of having a monarchy—that is putting it absolutely coldly. I go further and I say that they believe that the monarchy has, in the last 50 years, time and time again proved itself, both in peace and war, as a most useful institution to them and one which they like. I say, in addition, that our people are convinced that the members of the Royal Family have set a standard of devotion and of service which, though it may be equalled, could scarcely

  2003
  be surpassed in any part of the world. I am, therefore, not at all in favour of any cheeseparing.
  As for expenses, or any falling below the standard of generosity with regard to the actual money which the Royal Family may have to spend or, so to speak, to dispose of by themselves, I believe that the labourer is worthy of his hire. That is not less so just because sometimes people do not believe that the sort of work that the labourer does is real work.
  Many people do not believe that a Member of Parliament's work, or even a Cabinet Minister's work, is real work. I remember the case of a Home Secretary, known as "Jix," who, speaking to Lancashire cotton girls, told them that he worked 14 hours a day. He was greeted with raucous shouts from them. "Yours is not work," they said.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: They worked in the Lancashire cotton mills in those days.
  Mr. Mallalieu: They worked then, and they work now. But there is no excuse for anybody in this House, where to an infinitely smaller degree we too live in the public gaze, saying that that sort of work cannot be, and is not, extremely exacting.
  The sums with which we are dealing in the Bill are very large sums indeed. The trouble is that very few people know—I doubt whether anybody outside the Cabinet or outside the Select Committee knows—how much of these sums which we nominally assign to His or Her Royal Highness this or that, can, in fact, be disposed of by that Royal person. That is, perhaps, a great mistake.
  I suspect that by far the greater part of the money which is given to a particular person by the Civil List is disposed of, not by that person at all, but by officials on, so to speak, expenses of the job. Therefore, to describe such money as wages is a fantastic perversion of the truth. It is really money which is expended for purposes of the State by officials, though nominally given by us to a particular individual.
  It is a pity that the sums which are for the private disposition of some of these people are not stated quite specifically. I say this not because I wish to pry into
  2004
  their private affairs or because I think that Parliament ought to do so, but because I wish to protect them from uninformed, although often quite well-meaning, criticism.
  The average man, I think, simply does not realise that when x pounds is voted to His Royal Highness y, y does not have that money to do entirely as he likes with and to spend on his own. Yet on the face of the Bill, the average person could be pardoned for believing that that is precisely what happens. That is a very great pity.
  I have said that I think most of the money which we give to the Royal Family is, in fact, spent upon State expenses, or expenses of functions of State of which we approve. That is very nearly true, although there are, of course, people who disagree with this or that detail. Now is the time for them to say so, with perfect right and propriety, and without any sense of criticism of the individual members of the Royal Family. The two things are quite distinct. It seems to me that it is both our right and our duty, if we feel that any item of expenditure ought to be changed, that it should be said so now in this House.
  I would add that people should be specific. If something is wrong in the expenditure, let them be specific as to what it is and how it could be remedied. Certain suggestions have been made, among them that Holyroodhouse and Buckingham Palace should be turned into flats. I feel that that is a case of muddled thinking, and, possibly, also of headline-seeking thinking.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: If my hon. and learned Friend lived near Holyrood Palace, where thousands of people are living in shocking slum conditions, he would not talk about the desirability of not improving the housing conditions. If anyone wants to find out whether there is a demand for accommodation, let him advertise and see the long list of people who would volunteer to come.
  Mr. Mallalieu: I can well understand people who live in shocking conditions, whether near Holyrood or elsewhere, thinking that it might be very nice if they were housed in these places. What I find more difficult to understand is that anybody who should be able to appreciate the real facts of the case should lend

  2005
  his authority to encouraging them to think that that would be possible or desirable. I say this for two reasons, which I put forward in all sincerity.
  First, these places would be most uneconomic to turn into flats or anything else. I believe that the amount of money which would be spent, even on new materials, in doing such a thing would be far greater than if those materials were used on building new flats ab initio. Secondly, we also must have regard to posterity. I feel that it would be most improper for us to destroy what are, in effect, museum pieces and to deprive future generations of the pleasure of seeing them. Those two reasons, I think, are a complete answer to what my hon. Friend has said. We all feel sympathy with those who have not adequate housing and we will do everything we can in this House to see that the position is remedied, but not along those lines.
  I am very much in favour of increased simplicity, wherever it can be found possible, in the Royal ceremonial. It was suggested, far more sensibly, that Buckingham Palace should be only used for ceremonial occasions and that the unfortunate inmates should be housed elsewhere in more suitable, intimate houses. That is a way in which possible advance might be made. I have been very much attracted by the thought of the Queen of Denmark being able to go out into the parks pram pushing and into the streets of Copenhagen. I do not believe that it is because our people are less well mannered that that sort of thing cannot happen here, but because the "old hand" over royalty has for far too long segregated them far too much from the ordinary people. That is why that sort of thing could not happen here without too great a stir. Still, there is a new reign and, perhaps, new breezes will sweep through the Royal Palaces.
  This is the sort of occasion when such a thing could happen, but I do not think that we in this House ought to dictate as to the precise methods in which change should come about. Rather we should be content to express here our view that the people of this country sympathise to the fullest extent with any attempt which can possibly be made to simplify the irksome mesh of unnecessary ceremonial while leaving all that is colourful and still
  2006
  useful in its place and, while attempting to bring the Royal Family more into contact with ordinary life, to allow them to lead a life of their own.
  Just who is responsible for the state of affairs which prevents rather greater freedom and naturalness on the part of royalty, it is hard for any of us to say. I can only say, for my part, that if such persons could be pensioned off, quietly and kindly, I should regard an increase in the Civil List for that purpose, temporarily, as public money well spent in view of the benefits which would doubtless come from it. I am very anxious indeed that these people should not be allowed to dim the feelings of loyalty and affection, which I think the average person in this country has for the Crown, by reason of obstinate clinging to outmoded routine and custom.
  I find it very hard to believe that there could be any monetary reward which would adequately compensate the members of the Royal Family for the ceaseless toil and sacrifice of ordinary liberties which are entailed in the status of royalty. I can only hope that our present members of the Royal Family find some satisfaction in the feeling of a job well done and also in the knowledge of the very widespread approval which meets their own way of carrying out their public duties to their people.
  4.55 p.m.
  Sir Edward Boyle: I am very pleased to be able to follow the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), with whose speech—the greater part of it—all of us on this side of the House feel the very strongest agreement. I wish to deal quite shortly with the suggestion from the Front Bench opposite, in their Amendment, that there should be provision for a review of this expenditure at statutory intervals.
  I read with very great interest the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) last Wednesday. He put his case, as he always does in this House, in a very fair and reasonable manner. I would always very carefully consider any argument he put forward. But, whereas I think he proved rather conclusively that if the Queen has a long reign it may be necessary at a later date to make some future provisions, I do not think he

  2007
  proved the case he was trying to prove, namely, that this Civil List should be reviewed at statutory intervals.
  Last Wednesday this House showed beyond all question that the moral authority of the Crown is something which absolutely transcends party views in this House. That is indeed a very happy state of affairs. I am not sure that we in this country always realise how fortunate we are that that is so. If I may give one example, I think one of the happiest examples of the moral authority of the Crown can be seen if we compare the proceedings of a Royal Commission in this country with similar proceedings in other parts of the world, like the Committee of Investigation into un-American Activities.
  I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was absolutely right in the very fine speech he made in winding up the debate last Wednesday. I make bold to say that that speech will be considered in the future as one of the finest handlings of this theme which could be imagined. He said:
  "it really would be contrary to the best interests of our own relationship with that constitutional monarchy if we were to demand too frequent reviews, especially in matters of money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 1425.]
  If we were to insist that the Civil List should be reviewed at statutory intervals there would be a serious danger at some future date of the Crown becoming involved in party politics. May I remind the House that it would be very much easier to involve the Crown in party politics at some future date than to get it out again if it had so fallen? I believe it would be a great error to suggest that there should be an automatic review of the Civil List at statutory intervals by a Select Committee of this House.
  There is a second point which I would like the House to consider. The right hon. Gentleman talked about ill-informed comments about the Royal Family. I believe one of the strongest arguments against having an automatic review of the Civil List at statutory intervals is that we would have a flood of ill-informed comments at statutory intervals as well. I cannot think that it would be a good idea to have the sort of questionnaire sent out last weekend by the
  2008
  "Sunday Pictorial" appearing every 10 years in this country. Nothing could be worse than for the people of this country to become too Civil List-conscious. We would get a flood of ill-informed comment and gossip every time there was a review.
  I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) once saying in this House, I think very wisely, that the only tolerable form of Government is that which is taken for granted. I suggest that it is a good thing that we in this country are able to take the moral authority of the Crown for granted and that it would not be conducive to that if we were to reconsider these sums every 10 years with all the ill-informed comment and gossip which would result.
  Mr. Percy Shurmer: Has the hon. Member heard any comment in his constituency? Will he be surprised to know that there has been more comment in favour of the view put by this side of the House than on anything I can remember?
  Sir E. Boyle: In that case, it is a curious thing that my own constituents, who, I think, represent a fairly average cross section, have not written a single letter to me on the matter.
  Mr. Shurmer: I did not say that, but "comment."
  Sir E. Boyle: In conclusion, I would remind the House of some words spoken earlier by a great Prime Minister of this country. Two years ago I had the privilege of editing two speeches by Disraeli for the Press. In one of those speeches he used these words:
  "The wisdom of your forefathers placed the prize of supreme power without the sphere of human passions. Whatever the struggle of parties, whatever the strife of factions, whatever the excitement and exaltation of the public mind, there has always been something in this country round which all classes and parties could rally, representing the majesty of the law, the administration of justice, and involving at the same time, the security for every man's right and the fountain of honour."
  I believe that those words are as true today as when they were uttered almost exactly 80 years ago. For that reason I honestly believe the Amendment to be mistaken and I hope that the House will resist it.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The hon. Member has just been saying that he thinks an inquiry every so often would lead to a flood of ill-informed criticism. Is it not a fact that when there is an accident or anything else there is at once an inquiry to establish the facts, and would not this inquiry establish the facts and so still uninformed criticism?
  Sir E. Boyle: No, the point I was getting at was that whenever a committee of this kind sits—and I do not believe the facts alter so much from decade to decade—there is at once an incitement to the Press to write articles on every single aspect of the matter. Many of these articles are very ill-informed.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, South said in his speech that there was nothing wrong in discussing the affairs of the Royal Family. I quite agree. But if there is one subject which the ordinary member of the public is incompetent to discuss it is the management of the Royal Household. We, the ordinary Members of this House and the public, have very little knowledge indeed on which to base discussion of the management of the Royal Household.
  5.1 p.m.
  Mr. James Hudson: I think I agree with the last words of the hon. Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), when he spoke of the inability of Members of this House and the general public to discuss the general affairs of Royalty. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did not say that."] The assumption was that the general public was so ill-equipped with the knowledge that was necessary to arrive at conclusions that it was doubtful whether any effective discussion could take place.
  As I say, I tend to agree with that view because—I will be quite honest with the House and myself—I do not know very much about Royalty beyond what the Press tells me from time to time. The whole thing is a mystery so far as I am concerned, although it is erected into a very pleasant mystery, and I am prepared to believe the best that the Press tries to tell me about Royalty.
  I am very glad to have had exploded, as my right hon. Friend exploded today, one of the bombs, and not merely one of them but all the 365 of them, that a
  2010
  foolish newspaper appears to have invented, when he said that there was no daily bottle of whisky at the disposal of Royalty, as a foolish newspaper had been saying. Some hon. Members may think that my interest in the matter will therefore end. As a mater of fact, it only now begins.
  I was very disappointed to read that story to which my right hon. Friend referred, because I remember—and this I knew was not altogether an unfounded story about Royalty—that in the reign of George V a remarkable testimony was paid by Royalty to the things about which I am very serious. I had hoped that what George V did during the First World War might have been tried again. I am not at all sure whether it may not have been tried again at a later date by other members of the Royal Family.
  Therefore, I am certainly not appearing today in the guise of a critic of the Royal Family. I repeat that I know very little about the realities of their lives. I am intervening in the debate only because I am one of the victims of the situation which we create in order to deal with the problems that the Royal Family present. I say that because, as I reminded the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was making the concluding speech in last week's debate, we are engaged, according to the first few lines of this Bill, in disposing of revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall.
  We are disposing of them in such a way that during the minority of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cornwall a part of the revenues of the Duchy shall be paid in relief of the charge for Her Majesty's Civil List. I enter into the discussion of that point as a practical person. As I told the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, I am one of the tenants of the Duchy of Cornwall. I talk to the other tenants of the Duchy, and there is a general impression amongst us that the Royal Family make very good landlords in the Duchy of Cornwall, that indeed, on the whole, those of us who are tenants of the Duchy do a great deal better than we would do if we were tenants of certain private interests in London which I know very well. A good example is being set there of which we have every reason to be proud and thankful.
  I know too, however, that in the sort of effort which is being made in this Bill

  2011
  to make the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall meet the needs of Royalty things will be done of the kind that I know have been done in the past, as, for example, when a few years ago His Majesty the late King indicated that he would forgo £100,000 of his private revenues in order to enable us to meet the difficulties which the House then had to meet with regard to matters of this sort. Many of us who lived in the Duchy of Cornwall believed that in order to enable that £100,000 to be forgone for that purpose, there was a good deal of neglect of the tenants in the Duchy of Cornwall.
  Sir H. Williams: I presume that the hon. Member is aware that not a pound came from the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. The hon. Member will find that out if he reads this document.
  Mr. Hudson: I have read it, and after reading it I do not share the view of the hon. Member. I am of the opinion still, in spite of his intervention, that in an effort to make up for this money in other ways there was, through the indirect connection between all these things which come into the Civil List, neglect of the property during the period when the financial struggle was embarked upon in order to meet the situation which was then created.
  I should like, therefore, to know quite clearly what the result will be for the tenants of the Duchy of Cornwall of the arrangements here being made. Other tenants have expressed their concern about the matter. I believe that if it were left to the personalities of Royalty to decide these issues, the tenants would get the same sort of superior treatment as I believe they have generally enjoyed under wise management when there has been any personal influence brought to bear on these matters.
  I leave that question to make one or two comments on other points that have emerged in this discussion. Everyone participating in this debate, as in the debate last week, seems to be agreed that the money which we spend on Royalty is specially justified because of the belief of the whole country in pageantry, and that the whole of our people are looking for such expenditure even in bad times like these, when we must tell everybody
  2012
  to forgo any increase in his wages. It seems to be agreed that, for the sake of the pageantry we get out of it, we should be willing to agree, on an occasion of this sort, to the sums which are included in the Civil List. That is at all events an argument that I have heard advanced.
  I know that there is truth in that argument. I know that, if there were not a Royal Family, our people would be inventing kings and queens or something similar in order to meet their desire for a show. Who of us in the House who goes down in June and July to take part with our constituents in local rallies does not come across regularly, as I did last Saturday, the young ladies who are declared to be the "queens" of this town or that district, and who are worshipped by the assembled multitude in exactly the same way, though in a smaller degree perhaps, as Royalty is worshipped on the greater occasions?
  Finding that there is this longing of the people for a show, and that it can be satisfied by the provision of a certain amount of pageantry concentrated in the personality of the monarch—and although I am unwilling to waste money, because I consider it to be a waste of money in the situation that faces us—I know that large bodies of my constituents expect this provision regarding Royalty to be continued, but I do not believe that that covers the desires of the majority of the citizens of this country.
  When it comes to the question referred to with great indefiniteness by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), the question of the expenditure by the people who surround Royalty and who carry out the functions of pageantry to which we attach so much importance, I am quite certain that, as has been said during these debates, 80 to 90 per cent. of the money that is paid in the Civil List goes to the expenditure of private persons and families who regard themselves as necessary for the pageantry of the State, and I do not believe that we get good value for that money.
  I think there are people all over the show—and I use the word "show" advisedly—who are living in houses in pleasant places, with special titles accorded to them, appointing staffs of their own and administering to their own private purposes, whom we could very

  2013
  well do without, and whom Royalty could very well do without, even from the point of view of the purpose of pageantry, to which we are all prepared to agree.
  I think there is a necessity to examine this matter carefully from time to time—and this is where I find a reason for supporting wholeheartedly the proposal for the 10-yearly revision of the moneys that are paid—and that there ought to be a much closer examination than any that appears to have been given by the Select Committee to the extent to which moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of the pageantry and the functions of the State go into the pockets of those who produce hardly anything themselves. It is the unsatisfactory character of that sort of expenditure, to which also "Reynolds Newspaper" referred last weekend, to which I think it is worth while drawing attention.
  I do not know how far the stories told in the newspapers about Royalty are to be believed at all, and I do not know whether the story in "Reynolds Newspaper" that a real effort is being made, certainly by one of the members of the Royal Family, to rid Royalty of the burden and the unpleasantness which that sort of thing involves, is true or not. I hope the story is true. I hope it really is the case that—so runs the story—the Duke of Edinburgh, under the Queen's leadership, is really getting down, to the examination of all those hangers-on who bring no credit to the Royal Family, who add no lustre to the State, and whose pageantry, so far as most of us are concerned, is utterly wasteful.
  I hope that an attempt is being made to revise this expenditure, and very considerably to limit it. I am certain of that, if the story told by "Reynolds Newspaper" is true, the Duke of Edinburgh will add another reason to those which I agree have already been provided by that young man—who seems to me to be a very pleasant young man, as far as I can make out—for the generosity of treatment which this House has been willing to accord to him in the life which he must now lead as the Consort of the Queen.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: May I interrupt my hon. Friend? If that story is correct, it includes the closing of Balmoral, and I
  2014
  am quite certain that the people north of the "tartan curtain" would very greatly deplore the closing of Balmoral.
  Mr. Hudson: The hon. Lady must draw from the newspapers, as we all have to do, such amount of truth as she thinks resides in these stories. I was not trying to show that there was truth in the whole story or in part of the story I was reciting. I am not dealing with Balmoral, or with my hon. Friend's proposals about Buckingham Palace and the flats. Indeed. I never saw very much in that proposition. [Interruption.] Well, let me say something further about that.
  I do not see why Buckingham Palace should not be kept for the real purpose of pageantry, in which I agree the whole nation believes. I think that the State Apartments, the pictures and the pleasant residential places overlooking the gardens could very well be reserved, as they are now reserved, for the purposes of Royalty; but I am certain that if the whole of the plan of Buckingham Palace were examined by some committee—and this applies equally to the Palace of Westminster—we should find "dug in" in this corner and that corner this petty official and that petty official with claims which could not be substantiated.
  We should find all over Buckingham Palace that part of it could very well be transferred to the real uses of the State or to some Government offices, whose staff would probably get out of their premises and make them free for the flats that my hon. Friend wants to have.
  Mr. Stokes: May I say to my hon. Friend that, having examined both, I am quite satisfied that he is wrong about Buckingham Palace and more right about the Palace of Westminster?
  Mr. Hudson: I am always impressed with the evidence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) because I know how carefully he looked at the matter himself, and that he knows what is going on. If he tells me that, I am impressed, and I say that I shall have to revise this view.
  Sir H. Williams: Why not read the right newspapers?
  Mr. Hudson: I form my views, as hon. Members form their views, as best I can from the estimate that I give to the validity of the stories in the newspapers.

  2015
  I am only saying that, while I am not departing from the general voicing of a desire that the country's wish for the proper maintenance of the Royal Family should now be carried out, I am well aware, without the help of the newspapers, from everything I see for myself about the disposal of the Royal properties that there is a great area in which a considerable saving could be effected. Nobody would benefit more from that saving than the Royal Family themselves.
  Whether they agree to embark upon the full-scale inquiry that is necessary is, of course, a matter for them to decide; but this House, which is making this enormous grant at a time of great financial stringency, should have taken its responsibilities far more seriously and insisted, through the Select Committee, on a much closer examination of the problem to which I have referred.
  5.21 p.m.
  Mrs. Eveline Hill: I am not now worried at the anxieties of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has put the matter briefly but conclusively. I was impressed during the sittings of the Select Committee by the enormous care taken by the Palace officials in compiling the list of the sums of money required. It has been said that there was a little cheese-paring by Members of my party many years ago. Frankly, I felt that the officials had done a lot of cheese-paring in the estimates submitted to the Committee.
  As a Member sitting on the Committee for the first time, I was amazed at the amount of effort which the Royal Family themselves had put into cutting down expenses. It was reported by us on page 5 of the Report that it would be in accordance with the constitutional practice for the Queen to send another Gracious Message if there should be changes which necessitated a review. For that reason, I should not like the Amendment to be carried. Do we really want what amounts to a Royal means test every 10 years? I should deprecate that.
  It has been suggested during the debate that the garden parties might be cut down or widened to include more people. I was impressed last Thursday at the wide choice of people who attended the garden
  2016
  party. The guests came from all sections within our shores and from the Commonwealth and Empire. I do not mind if the garden parties are enlarged. I should be glad if more people could attend them. It would give them an opportunity to meet the Royal Family at closer range and to appreciate, probably to an even greater degree, the affection which we have for them.
  Mrs. Alice Cullen: Some factory girls, for instance?
  Mrs. Hill: It is not often remembered how much good our Royal Family do in other ways besides merely producing affection. For instance, the garden party last Thursday created a tremendous amount of trade and gave employment to many people. That is an aspect of many of these ceremonies which is forgotten. They have other uses in addition to their pageantry. Pageantry produces trade and employment.
  I sincerely hope that the Amendment will not be carried. Our Royal Family occupy an important office. They are respected all over the world. For that reason, I should hate their office to be reduced in status in any shape or form.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. M. Follick: I support the Amendment for a reason which has not been discussed much in this House. We are treating the Royal Family far too much as a British Royal Family rather than as a Royal Family which is in charge of the whole of the Empire and the majority of the Commonwealth. Within the next 10 years, or within any space of 10 years, the responsibilities and the duties of the Royal Family may so radically change that from time to time there will have to be a revision and a renewal of our ideas about their duties.
  Today, we journey at a much greater speed. Before the end of this decade it may well be that we shall reach Australia in less time than it took to go to Scotland at the beginning of the century. Within the last six months of her reign Queen Victoria went to Balmoral in thé last month of 1900. She was then 82 years of age. She died the oldest member of any British Royal Family which we have had, yet at the age of 82 she went to Scotland.
  I have heard of the amount of extra work which would be imposed and of

  2017
  the extra duties which would fall on to their shoulders, but I see no reason why the Royal Family should not make regular visits not only to the Dominions but to the other parts of the Empire as well—not spasmodic visits but regular visits as a part of their duties and responsibilities. King George V was crowned in India as well as in London. In those days they recognised the importance of the monarchy within the Empire.
  I think that we should accentuate that importance and do all we can to bind together the Empire and the Commonwealth by using the monarchy in this way as a binding-link. This country of Britain alone cannot survive without the Commonwealth and the Empire. The 51 million people in Britain have no future without the Empire and the Commonwealth. Unless something is done to bind us altogether we shall find ourselves within a short time—a matter of decades—in the utmost misery. Therefore, we must make full use of the monarchy in this respect.
  Take the case of Africa alone. These new self-governing Colonies may, within a couple of decades, be so advanced as to influence the whole of Africa. We may see rising there a great African Empire following the example of these two new self-governing Colonies, if they give the right example and if they make progress and develop. What could be more fitting than regular visits from the Monarch to that part of the world?
  A couple of weeks ago I was entertained by four South Africans. They were not entirely English-speaking South Africans, they were Afrikaans-speaking South Africans; that is to say, they were of Boer extraction. They told me of the tremendous impression made in South Africa when the late King and his Queen went there on a visit. It changed the whole of the sympathies of the population in that part of the world. I think a regular visit to South Africa by the Royal couple might do a great deal to heal what is now a scar in the relationship between the Afrikaans-speaking part of that Dominion and the non-Afrikaans speaking part of it. These regular visits of the Monarch would do a great deal to bring South Africa back to the position of eminence in which we used to think of her when she was under the leadership of the late Field Marshal Smuts and
  2018
  a very formidable column of the Commonwealth.
  Therefore, we must go into this question of a periodical revision—and I think that every decade is a good period—to see exactly what use should be made of the monarchy. It may very well be that in the next decade, if the monarchy is used to its full extent, the Commonwealth may possibly contribute towards the upkeep of the monarchy; that they would think it part of their duty, their honour and their privilege to contribute towards the upkeep of the monarchy. That would make a difference to this country in its contribution in that respect. I hope that the members of the Commonwealth will take their full share in this part of the financial situation of the Royal house.
  Let us remember that today it is not purely a British monarchy, it is an Imperial monarchy over the whole Empire and the Commonwealth and it should be considered as such. As many hon. Members have said, never in the history of this country have we been so united. Never have we been such a happy people as we are today. The people today are a happy people. When we read the history of the time of Queen Victoria, as we are so often invited to do—
  Mr. Ellis Smith: What about the Lancashire textile workers?
  Mr. Follick: —and see the condition of the Lancashire textile workers in the days of Queen Victoria we find that there is not much comparison with conditions today. The first Elizabeth sent her sailors out to found what was to be this tremendous estate, and it may well be that in the reign of the second Elizabeth we shall see the consolidation of this estate, and that we shall develop as one huge people spread throughout the world, not as a British monarchy but as an Imperial monarchy of the British Empire and Commonwealth.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) has reminded the House that it is not often that we have an opportunity of discussing the monarchy, and in a short time, from the obscurity of these back benches, I wish to express two hopes which are very widely held in this country. The second one arises quite naturally from

  2019
  the speech of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) and I would like to follow the line he has taken.
  That the first of these hopes is widely held is evidenced by the speeches made in this House last Wednesday in the Committee of Supply, and by the pleas recently made by the Federation of Women's Institutes that the nation as a whole should endeavour not to overwork our beloved young Queen, remembering that she has her duties also as a wife and mother; and by the "Lancet," declaring, one must assume, on behalf of the medical profession, that the health and vitality of the Queen must be protected from Her Majesty's hereditary sense of duty.
  I believe that it would be a very happy augury if, at the outset of this most hopeful reign, there were to arise a nationwide recognition that the accession to the Throne of a young Queen and a mother necessarily involved—unless her health and her family responsibilities are to suffer, which none of us would want to happen—a new interpretation of the duties of the Sovereignty. That interpretation will impose on all of us restraint in our demands upon Royalty and will require on the part of those closest to the Throne excessive care, particulary at the outset of this reign, not to create precedents which will lead to greater demands upon the time and health of Her Majesty than she ought to be required to make.
  That leads me to the second point, and to the speech of the hon. Member for Loughborough. Instead of accepting as inevitable the necessity for Her Majesty to undertake a heavy time-table of official visits in this country, I think we should remember constantly that our Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth, is not only Queen of this Realm, but, as the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has reminded the House, and, as is stated in the Accession Proclamation, is Queen of her other realms and territories and head of the Commonwealth.
  It is greatly to be hoped that the postponed visit to Ceylon, Australia and New Zealand will take place at an early date. Not only that, but that it will be found possible in the future for Her Majesty and her Consort to make, at leisure, extensive Commonwealth tours of which the itineraries and programmes have been so
  2020
  arranged as to provide adequate opportunities for rest and recreation. I believe that this would be immensely facilitated if the idea could be accepted and adopted that Her Majesty goes into residence, perhaps for a period of months, in one or other of the great self-governing Dominions across the seas. It is an idea which I think would be greatly preferable to the rushed and exhausting tours of many Royal journeys in the past.
  In those sad weeks which followed the demise of the late King I ventured to try to express some of these thoughts in a letter which was published in one of the organs of the Press, and I received a great correspondence, as so often happens when one writes a letter to the newspapers. As a result of that I was brought into touch with someone whom I had not met before and who does not know that I intend to mention his name in the House this afternoon. It was Brigadier T. W. Boyce, who provided me with a copy of a paper which he had written containing an idea new to me and which seemed to me to have great attraction.
  He suggested that some of the great self-governing Dominions might think it appropriate, perhaps as a Coronation gift to Her Majesty, to make the offer of a Royal residence so that in some of the great self-governing Dominions the Queen would have a home of her own to which she might go from time to time and where she might obtain refreshment and rest and change as well as fulfil an important part of the duty of sovereignty.
  Mr. Norman Dodds: In making that proposal is the hon. Member not aware that a Gallup Poll was taken in Canada two months ago on a similar proposal and that a big majority of people were against such a thing happening in Canada? How does he reconcile that with his suggestion?
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I was not aware of that, but, of course, it would have an important bearing on the matter. The gift of a Royal residence is not an integral part of the idea of periodic residence in the great self-governing Dominions, but I suggest that if the idea were accepted there would be in time, and I come to another idea mentioned by the hon. Member for Loughborough, the possibility of a local Civil List to defray some part of the Royal expense during residence overseas.
  Mrs. Mann: The hon. Member expressed concern about Her Majesty's duty, particularly as a mother, and hoped that we would be all much more reasonable in our demands upon her. I am sure that we all feel like that about Her Majesty's position, but how does that hope square with the hon. Member's proposal that she should be in this Colony and the next, residing for months at a time? Will the hon. Member please try and clear the air a little?
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I am greatly indebted to the hon. Lady for her question, because it enables me to develop this point very briefly.
  I have asked a great many people about this and I think that one of worst features of Royal duty is what someone has called the daily moil of the scarlet boxes—the need to keep constantly abreast of current affairs by reading day after day the contents of the scarlet boxes wherever Her Majesty might be. I was interested when the Prime Minister suggested, last Wednesday, that it might be possible for Her Majesty to have some respite from these scarlet boxes, perhaps for a month in the year while on holiday.
  If Her Majesty were in residence in Australia and Canada the distance alone would impose some limitation upon the amount of matter which would have to be digested daily. I would hope that residence abroad from time to time in the Colonies or Dominions would be of sufficient length to provide real rest and recreation, and I believe that that would be possible.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: Before my hon. Friend goes on to his next subject, does he accept without question the statement made by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) that a Gallup Poll was taken in Canada and that the result was against the Queen and Her Consort living or visiting there and having a place there? I have never heard of it and I am astonished at the information.
  Mr. Dodds: May I refer the hon. Member to the "News Chronicle" of two months ago when the details were given. The reason why I took so much interest in it was because I was advocating something similar. One response was, "We will have them here if Britain
  2022
  pays the expense." I suggest that the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) and the hon. Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) should study that report. It might cause them to adjust their ideas when they suggest that the Royal Family should go to other countries without first finding out whether those countries want them or not.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I shall look at the figures, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter), who is an authority on Canada, will do also. The marvels of 20th century transport have made it possible for our Queen to visit distant outposts of the Empire with almost as little inconvenience and in almost as short time as it was possible for our grandparents' Queen to visit Balmoral and the Palace of Holyrood House.
  Mr. Stokes: Does the hon. Member realise what he is suggesting? Does he realise that these tours overseas are probably more exacting than staying at home? And one of the devilish things is that one gets there so quickly now.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I am giving way because I am afraid I am not making myself clear. I had suggested—and I hope that the House will bear this in mind—that the programmes and itineraries of Imperial visits overseas could be so arranged as to give adequate time for rest and recreation. I agree entirely about the speed of transport. That was recognised in the days of the late Mr. Mackenzie King, who said:
  "We may look forward to the day when the King and Queen may reside for part of the year in the capital of Canada."
  Since the Statute of Westminster the nations of the Commonwealth and Empire have been animated in moments of crisis with exactly the same ideals and exactly the same unity of purpose as they displayed in August, 1914. War-time comradeship between hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of young men and women from all parts of the Empire has forged new ties of respect and understanding. Post-war stresses have increased the realisation of the inter-dependence of our unique union of independent nations.
  It is clear that the reception accorded to the Heiress Presumptive on her visits to Canada and Kenya, the anticipation

  2023
  with which Ceylon, Australia and New Zealand had looked forward to the Royal visit, the most moving reaction throughout the Empire to the death of his late Majesty and to the accession of her present Majesty have shown how strong are the links which bind the nations of the Commonwealth to the Throne.
  I have no doubt at all that Her Majesty's residence in her own home in her various realms would dispose of any suggestion that there might be—and sometimes suggestions are made on those lines—of the dominance of the Mother Country. At the same time, it would increase the feeling that the Royal Family, of which we are all so justifiably proud, belongs no less to Canberra and Ottawa than to London and Windsor.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I think we all share the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley)—opinions which were expressed in a very interesting letter recently to the "Daily Telegraph"—and I am quite sure that everybody agrees that everything possible should be done to relieve the Monarch of the harrassing and pressing day-to-day duties which the formalities and the conventions of the past have imposed upon the Monarch.
  I believe that something should be done to ease the nightmare and burden of the red dispatch box. It is a custom that the Monarch must sign certain State papers. Lord Thurlow once told King George IV that it was useless for him to look at papers, for he could not understand them. I am quite sure that a large number of Acts of this Parliament and the complicated legislation of the 20th century with its Clauses and subsections, Finance Bills. National Assistance and all the elaborate verbiage, simply cannot be understood by anybody who has not had a very long and extensive legal training.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: Would not the answer to that be to make the Bills much more simple for everybody to understand.
  Mr. Hughes: I believe our legislation could be made much more simple, and that includes this Bill which we are discussing. I think that the duties carried
  2024
  out by the Monarch in approving the legislation submitted by Parliament and giving the Royal Assent could very well be carried out by a certificate of the Speaker of the House. The whole elaborate formula which the Monarch has to follow in going through all these State papers should be dispensed with and the Monarchy should be regarded purely as a ceremonial function.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The Monarch does not have to read Acts of Parliament, nor does he have to sign them. That is the whole purpose of the Commission; the Royal Assent is given in another place.
  Mr. Hughes: That completely proves my point that there is no necessity for the Monarch to deal with these matters at all and that the whole formality might be dispensed with. I am sure Her Majesty will be grateful to me, for I would give her a perpetual holiday from the duty of inspecting the various State papers.
  I agree with the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), but not with some of his opinions which he expressed in support of it. For example, I fail to see why he has an objection to a Royal personage marrying a foreigner. Queen Victoria married a foreigner, and this objection to foreigners is surely a curious argument to come from the Opposition.
  Mr. Stokes: I did not say that I objected to her marrying a foreigner. I said that I hoped she would marry an Englishman and that there are lots of eligible bachelors here, as there are. I dealt with the fallacious argument that there were plenty of rich people left here, and said that we ought to make it possible for her to marry a poor Englishman and not go abroad just because there are lots of rich foreigners.
  Mr. Hughes: We must keep in the front of our minds the present economic situation. Only yesterday the Government were asking us to economise to the extent of £30,000. In that debate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) said that the House was in much the same position as a limited liability company which was on the rocks, and another hon. Member said that this was a bankrupt country and that this fact

  2025
  should stand above all other considerations. In the same debate we had the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) telling us:
  "Unless we can save this country generally from the certain ruin which faces us unless we balance our economy, it will be idle to talk of water colours and armouries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 1857.]
  We should surely keep in our minds these warnings from the Government benches about bankruptcy and ruin, but it is from these benches, and not from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we are getting demands for economy and for very careful, meticulous consideration of our financial resources.
  I did not agree with the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich that there were so many stories about Royalty in the newspapers that there was a great deal of misunderstanding and that the people had the impression that these bills were larger than they really were. I suggest that there are barnacles on this particular boat and that there are a large number of officials whose duties should be inquired into and which was not done by the Select Committee.
  The Committee could examine persons who came voluntarily, but there was not the remittal to the Committee which applies to the usual Select Committee whose duty is to examine accounts. They had not power to send for persons and call for papers. All they had to do was to examine the evidence of a small number of court functionaries whose particular concern was to keep their own jobs. If we had a real Select Committee empowered to call people—a Committee composed of people who were determined to find out exactly how much money was being spent, and how—we would have an entirely different report.
  I want to make the same suggestion that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made at the conclusion of yesterday's debate, when he referred to the Organisation and Methods Division of the Treasury whose duty was to examine the expenditure on museums and art galleries. I suggest that the O. and M. Division of the Treasury should turn their attention to the expenditure in the Civil List with the object of making very necessary economies. We should not disguise the fact that altogether the bill for Royalty in this country is a very formidable one. It is not confined to the
  2026
  Civil List Vote. There is on the Ministry of Works Vote a further bill for £411,000.
  There are all kinds of items which are not included in this Civil List. There is the sum of £475,000 for the Queen's establishment. There is the sum of £30,000 extra for the Duke of Edinburgh. There is the sum of £411,000 for the Royal Parks, which is not considered on this particular Vote. There are the items in the previous Civil List—£70,000 for Queen Mary, a further £70,000 for the Queen Mother, and £35,000 for the Duke of Gloucester. I estimate that altogether there is a formidable bill of £1,091,000 for Royalty at the present time, which is a very big bill. When hon. Members talk about cheeseparing I would say that this is a very expensive cheese and it needs further examination.
  Certain remarks have been made about the way the Press treats Royalty. Royalty has every reason to protest against the shameless sensationalism which floods the Press on every possible occasion. But it should be taken into account that in the Royal Household there is a quite well paid Press department, which uses its office on every possible occasion for unnecessarily boosting and vulgarising Royalty. I think that substantial economies could be effected if a Select Committee were to turn its attention to the Press department. Do we need a very well paid Press secretary? Do we need an assistant press secretary and four clerks, including another Press clerk?
  I suggest that there is a tendency to overdo Royalty and to boost it on every possible occasion in a way which makes a large section of the people believe that Monarchy is being kept in existence not for the services which it renders but because it is an institution with a precedent, a tradition and a routine, which is fostered by the people who want tradition and routine because they believe that it symbolises the ownership of land and of privilege in a capitalist and landed society.
  I believe that the views I am expressing are more prevalent than hon. Gentlemen opposite think. There are probably some people who would be horrified—as were the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) and the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer—at my casual suggestion, which I threw out just at a chance moment in the

  2027
  debate, that some of these Royal residences could be converted into flats. Though they might be very uncomfortable and antiquated, and some of the rooms might not have the latest modern conveniences, they would help to rehouse temporarily some of the thousands and thousands of married couples who will not have any houses for another 25 years if the present Government do not improve their building programme. That opinion is far more prevalent and accepted in the country outside than it is in this House.
  I shall support the Amendment, and I hope that during the Committee stage we shall be able to impress upon the House the fact that we are standing for the British taxpayer against the profligates and spendthrifts, and that we want the whole question of these residences to be viewed in its proper perspective. If we do so I believe that we shall have a large volume of public opinion solidly behind us.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: There has been a very remarkable change in the tone of this debate as compared with that which took place last week on the Report of the Select Committee. Those of us who criticised that Report were then told quite definitely and conclusively that we represented nobody but ourselves; that there was no volume of opinion for whom we were speaking and that we were merely the odd few out. This afternoon the opposite charge has been made. We have been accused of playing to the gallery. In other words, if we criticise the Civil List we are doing it for the sake of popularity. People who make charges of that kind are probably most insincere themselves and, being insincere, they accuse everybody else of being the same.
  It is not a question of being anti-Royalty. It is not a question of having bitterness or animosity towards the Royal Family. But at the present time we are told that we face the most serious economic crisis that we have ever known, and it is a question whether, at a time when our people are being asked to make sacrifices, they should not be given a lead from the top and whether some cutting down in the expenditure entailed in this Bill might not well be undertaken without in any way impairing the opportunity of the Royal Family to live the useful
  2028
  and dignified lives that we all want them to live.
  My right hon. Friend who proposed the Amendment on behalf of the Opposition asked us to disregard the newspaper reports and comments. He said that he hoped that nobody would give any consideration to the story of the bottle of whisky which was supposed to be put on the tray every night and, although it was never opened, disappeared and nobody knew where it went; but if a bottle of whisky did disappear every night it would mean that only 365 disappeared in the year. At £2 a bottle that would be just over £700, and yet I see that £6,502 was spent in the Royal cellar last year. I do not know whether that represents the amount of liquor consumed in the Royal Palaces or whether it includes wages and various other items, but I should like to know because it would appear that if the sum of £6,500 a year is being spent in the Royal cellars there is room for a little economy there.
  If it is true that this country is in a terrible economic plight, it is very necessary that in the immediate months and years that lie ahead those who advise the Royal Family and arrange their tours should have some regard to what the people are feeling and thinking. When the late King—whom we all very much loved and respected—was going on a tour with the present Queen Mother it was decided that a ship had to be converted for them. The ship was the "Gothic," and tens of thousands of pounds were spent on putting a ship which was already a sailing mansion into what might be termed a Royal mansion. I met some of the men who were working on that ship, and I know what were their comments.
  I do not believe that the late King or the present Queen Mother wanted that. I do not believe that the present Queen would want that. I am quite sure that the Royal Family would like to be treated as human beings instead of angels. But, of course, they are surrounded by a lot of people who have never changed, who are still living back in the centuries past and who do not realise that we are now a modern democracy and that the respect which the Queen and the Royal Family have today is a respect out of love and admiration and not out of fear of what the Royal Family might do, as was the case in days gone by.

  2029
  It has been said today that this Civil List of £475,000 is misunderstood and that people do not understand how far the money has to go or the number of expenses and the types of expenditure which have to be made; but, of course, what people do understand is this—that constantly they are finding it more difficult to make ends meet, and that the ordinary people of this country, upon whom we shall have to depend more and more if we are to overcome the economic crisis, are finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet. When anyone talks in terms of thousands or tens of thousands of pounds, the ordinary people cannot understand why it is that they should have to sacrifice at a time when lavish and extravagant expenditure of this kind is being sanctioned.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said, it does not stop at £475,000. There is the other £70,000 and £30,000 and £10,000, and, of course, additional money will be involved by the Bill with each child that is born to the present Queen. That is something which the ordinary people just cannot understand. They cannot understand why, when every baby comes along, it must mean another £10,000 and why, when the child eventually marries, it must be another £25,000. Those are astronomical figures to ordinary working people, and I do not believe the ordinary working people who may criticise them are in any way being disrespectful or disloyal to the Royal Family.
  In conclusion, I do not believe, and nothing will ever convince me, that the Royal Family would lose anything of the love and affection which there is for them if we now decided that, because of the changed times in which we are living, it is necessary that the lives of the Royal Family should be brought more in keeping with those of the vast majority of the people over whom they reign. I think such a change would endear the Monarchy to the people.
  The Monarchy disappeared in many countries largely because it was far removed from the lives of the people over whom it reigned. None of us would like that to happen here, and I do not think it can happen here; but I am certain it could never happen if, because of the change through the centuries, from
  2030
  being an autocracy in this country, from being a country in which class divisions were very pronounced, to a modern democracy with class divisions becoming less and less, we decided that it would be helpful and beneficial if there were a fundamental change in the lives of the Royal Family. For that reason I want to support the Amendment, which asks that there should be a review every 10 years.
  6.14 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I hope we can now bring this debate on Second Reading to a close. Afterwards, as some hon. Members have reminded us, there is the Committee and remaining stages of the Bill. We have already had a debate on the Resolutions, and many of the arguments today have followed the line of the argument put previously on the Resolutions. I shall therefore confine myself to answering some of the questions and points which have been raised by hon. Members on all sides of the House.
  First of all, the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) moved the Amendment, which I understand is to be pressed to a Division. This is not dissimilar procedure from that which was adopted in 1936 and 1937, and although I personally regret that there should be a Division, I do not think opinion outside will regard it as unduly out of the way that an Amendment of this sort should be moved or that we should consider its contents in the spirit in which it was moved by the right hon. Gentleman. In moving the Amendment on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends, the right hon. Gentleman gave some reasons for it, and one of them appeared to be that he did not like barnacles. If I may say so, he appears to have barnacles on the brain or on whatever other part of the anatomy they best suit.
  Mr. Stokes: But not bats in the belfry.
  Mr. Butler: I could not help feeling that, as the right hon. Gentleman comes from a late Administration which was described by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as "lion-hearted limpets," he fully understands all about barnacles.
  Coming more seriously to the description of barnacles, I suppose he means that there were economies which might

  2031
  have been made. Although he finds, as we all found in the Select Committee, that in recent times many major economies have been carried out, he wants to be sure that such economies will continue to be carried out and, in the words of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), that the monarchy is fully up to date and is in touch with the times and with our modern democracy. That, I feel certain, we all wish to see.
  When the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), himself a tenant of the Duchy of Cornwall—and I am glad that he paid a tribute to good landlords—says that he feels, too, that savings might be made, I suggest that he and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have not perhaps paid enough attention to paragraph 14 of the Report of the Select Committee, in which the Committee said:
  "Your Committee have satisfied themselves that substantial economies have been made in the administration of the Royal Household since the end of the war, that the best professional advice is obtained from time to time to ensure the most economical administration of the various Departments of the Household, and that adequate measures are in force to maintain a continuous review of Household expenditure."
  Those words were included by the Select Committee, and I think they represented the views of all of us, whatever our different complexions may be on other things. In fact, rather remarkable economies have been undertaken, otherwise why is it, when the value of money has changed so much, that the cost of the Civil List has barely risen by comparison with previous reigns? Why is it that the Committee were satisfied?
  The Committee found that not only in the catering department, but also in the internal administration of the Household, and also in such matters as the upkeep of the Household, the most expert advice had been brought in, not from among what some hon. Members describe as the "hangers-on," who always seem to get it in the neck in our debates, but from the most business-like and practical firms in catering, for instance. I do not wish to mention any names, but they are firms that are associated in the public mind with the most democratic and efficient forms of expenditure and provision. They were called in to see whether the Royal
  2032
  Household is being run in an economical way.
  I can honestly say, and any hon. Member who sat on the Select Committee can say, that we were well satisfied that every economy which could reasonably be carried out has been carried out and that, in fact, there is an opportunity for that continuous review which the House would wish to see.
  I leave this to mention for a moment the question of "hangers-on." It was raised by more than one hon. Member in the course of our debate, and the words themselves were used by the hon. Member for Ealing, North. There was an inference in the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that the court functionaries were keeping the Monarchy in an old-fashioned mould when it might well move into modern times. All I should like to say about that is this, that when we had the evidence on the Select Committee it became quite clear to all of us—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me—that one thing certain about the senior Court officials is that they have shown the utmost unselfishness in taking salaries far below what they could get in the outside world and in deliberately submitting themselves to those economies in view of the considerable deficit in the Civil List at the end of the preceding reign.
  In fact, we found no fewer than 100 that was the figure quoted—including the very highest of the officials, who were, in fact, receiving rates quite unsuitable to the offices they were performing, even in comparison with Her Majesty's Civil Service, and it was partly due to that that a certain amount of money was added to the total of the Civil List, so that we can meet what, we thought were, thanks to the unselfishness of some of those persons, abuses of their very unselfishness. It is an entirely false picture, from what I have been able to assess in my study to fit myself for this debate, to suggest that there are hangers on of unlimited quantities in the Royal Household who drag Her Majesty or the Royal Household back, and do not allow them to accept the democratic procedure of modern times.
  Therefore, what it comes to is this, that the main difference of opinion between that side of the House and the Government is on the procedure. I fully accept

  2033
  what the right hon. Member for Ipswich has said, that he wishes the Monarchy to be efficient and properly run and in keeping with tradition. That echoes words used also by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell). We accept that as the general view, although we have had one or two exceptions to that. But there is the difference of procedure. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest that there should be a review, and that this review shall be undertaken
  "by a Select Committee of this House, of the appropriate level of expenditure for this purpose, and of its allocation as between the personal expenditure of the Royal Family and the cost of purely State ceremonial and activities."
  We say on this side of the House that we regard the Royal Household as a unit and entity of itself. We regard the question of the decision about ceremonial in the future, and the attempt to allocate expenditure in between the personal expenses of the members of the Royal Household and the official expenses of upkeep, as much best decided by the ruling Sovereign of the day, and, to use the words which were used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South, we think that there really would be a great danger, if we were to adopt the course suggested by hon. Members opposite, of bringing the Monarchy far too much into our ordinary political struggles and comments.
  For example, the right hon. Gentleman himself said:
  "… the ceremonial, the colour, the pageantry, and so on … should be associated not with those who hold the political power for the time being but with the head of the State who is above the political battle."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 1412.]
  All we are asking hon and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to do is to accept those words by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and to keep all that above the political battle, and that is why we believe that the decisions of this Select Committee are correct, namely, that we should endeavour, with all the difficulties involved, to make provision for what may well be a long reign; and that we have deliberately allowed for by this contingencies margin; and we believe that these arrangements will be most suitable for dealing with problems that arise in the future.
  Hon. Members raised questions about this contingencies margin or supplemen-
  2034
  tary class. One question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary), that if there is a surplus, what happens to the surplus? That was quite clearly set out in the Select Committee's Report, and is set out in the Bill, and the answer is that the surplus accumulates, and if there is a big surplus at the end of the reign it is for Parliament to decide what happens to that money at the end of the reign, and Parliament will be absolutely free. Meanwhile, the trustees can invest the money, and the House can feel, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South himself described, that, in fact, in that case the Civil List would not be more than £405,000 because the rest of the money would in fact be accumulating.
  I may say in passing that I think that it is perfectly possible that some of this money will have to be used from the contingencies margin for deficits in the Civil List, because, judging from our examination, we find that, at the present moment, with the upkeep necessary, with all the expenses involved, it only just provides sufficient to keep the Royal Household on what we consider is the adequate and the dignified level. So it may well be necessary, without further wage increases or anything of that sort, that some of this money will have to be transferred to Classes II and III.
  More than one hon. Member raised the question of the £25,000 which the Select Committee thought should be at the disposal of Her Majesty for use in the case of certain
  "unavoidable expenses of such members of the Royal Family for whom no financial provision is otherwise made."
  The Select Committee went on to say that such expenditure
  "should be at the discretion of the sovereign."
  We have been asked why that particular form of words should not be put into legal language. The answer, quite frankly, is that although we have at our command the most expert Parliamentary counsel in the world it is very difficult indeed to translate the whole of those words into purely legal language in a statute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because so much is left at discretion. What we have done —and in this hon. Members need not be afraid that we are not fully safeguarding the position of Parliament—is to put this

  2035
  sum under the discretion of the Trustees in Clause 9.
  I come now to one of the points which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich. But perhaps he wishes to supplement it before I answer him?
  Mr. Stokes: What I wanted to make quite clear was that the Chancellor understands my point. It is this, that the Trustees are a statutory body who have no discretion, but may do only what they are directed to do by this House, and this Bill does not direct them. That was the point I endeavoured to make.
  Mr. Butler: Yes, I was just coming to that. The Bill does, in fact, direct them. The Trustees are charged under Clause 9 with the duty of making arrangements for securing that, if in a year there is a deficit on the audited expenditure of Classes II and III, supplementary provision from Class V shall be available to make good the deficit, and that duty lies, therefore, upon them.
  An hon. Member raised a certain point about the use of the word "may" in Clause 9 (2). The words are:
  "… the Treasury may direct that out of the appropriations to those classes an amount equal to the excess be transferred to the trustees, to be accumulated by them as aforesaid."
  We think that it would be possible, if the House were to show any inclination, as, I think, the right hon. Gentleman has done, to put an Amendment down to alter that into "shall." We should not do it quite as simply as using the word "shall" in that place. We should leave out the words in page 5, line 4, "the Treasury may direct that," and insert "then," and in line 5 we should insert after the word "excess" the word "shall." That, I think, would meet the right hon. Gentleman's point. There was never intended to be any point of substance in that. It was following form. However, we should be ready to move those Amendments.
  I revert to the general position of the Trustees. In the first place, as the Leader of the House has said, they will presumably arrange for Her Majesty to have available automatically that element of Class V up to the maximum, because, let hon. Members remember, it is not laid
  2036
  down that the maximum of £25,000, which was set aside for the Sovereign to use in the way I have already described, need be spent in a year.
  After all—and the greater power covers the less, the greater power meaning that they have the power and the duty to make good the deficits on Classes II and III if they occur—the Trustees can make such arrangements as they judge best for making the Contingencies Margin available for the purpose for which Parliament has decided, namely, the making good of deficits in Classes II and III. They can make those arrangements in any way they think fit, and no doubt when the legislation is passed it will be the duty of the Trustees to make such arrangements as operate smoothly and efficiently to make good the audited deficits on Classes II and III. As they have power to make good the deficits from the contingencies margin available, so they have power to make good the £25,000 to Her Majesty for the purpose I have described.
  Mr. Stokes: The Select Committee Report makes it quite clear in general terms what the £25,000 is to be used for; the Bill does not. I quite agree that the Trustees can make good the deficit, but nowhere in the Bill does it say that they can make up this £25,000 to Her Majesty.
  Mr. Butler: I think the right hon. Gentleman is perhaps getting embroiled in the legalities of the situation, as I have been when studying it. The fact is that if Her Majesty spends that money it will be a deficit, presumably, on Class III. I am only talking in legal terms, and it is in these legal terms that we have considered the Bill. I have been through the same travail as the right hon. Gentleman. If Her Majesty spends money, which will, presumably, from my investigation, come out of Class III, it will then be made good by the Trustees by such arrangements as they think fit, but it is because of the nature of the wording that it has not been possible to put it more accurately or in more specific detail in the Bill than has already been suggested. I hope that answers the points put by the right hon. Gentleman. I feel sure that the provision of the House will make in this connection will be of the utmost satisfaction to Her Majesty.

  2037
  We have now reached the time at which, I think, this Business was to be divided on and when we were to take other matters, so I will not delay the House any further. I will say only this. In this debate we have had some evidence of the attitude of friendliness towards the Royal Family, the attitude of deep respect for tradition combined with a certain healthy, and at times jovial, criticism, which I feel sure will be understood in the quarters towards which it is directed.
  It is very natural in these days, as history has shown over the past generations, and even more so 130 or 140 years ago than today, that hon. Members should express their opinions; that they should contrast the expenditure which they see here with the modest lives of the people;
  that they should consider the difficult economic times in which we live. But towering above all these considerations is our respect for what is probably our most precious traditional heritage, namely, the Royal House. If that Royal House is to continue and do service to the Commonwealth, as two or three hon. Members have desired in this debate, and to these islands, if it is to maintain its high tradition and march in step with modern democracy, then we feel that it should be well supported to keep up its traditions in the way we would wish.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."?
  The House divided: Ayes, 249 Noes, 224.

  Division No. 209.]

  AYES

  [6.36 p.m.

  Aitken, W T.

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Allan, R. A. (Paddinglon, S.)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Hollis, M. C.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  De la Bère, Sir Rupert

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Horobin, I. M.

  Amory, Healhcoat (Tiverton)

  Digby, S. Wingheld

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Arbuthnot, John

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Donner, P. W.

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

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

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.).

  Aster, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)

  Drewe, G.

  Hurd, A. R.

  Baker, P. A. O.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

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

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Duthie, W S.

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Banks, Col. C.

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Barber, Anthony

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E

  Jennings, R.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Erroll, F. J.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Baxter, A. B.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Beach, Mai. Hicks

  Fisher, Nigel

  Kaberry, D.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

  Foster, John

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Birch, Nigel

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Gage, C. H.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Black, C. W.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

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

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Gammans, L. D.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Braine, B. R.

  George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

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

  Brailhwaile, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Godber, J. B.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Gower, H. R.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Bullard, D. G.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  McAdden, S. J.

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

  Grimond, J.

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (1. of Wight)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Channon, H.

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Hare, Hon. J. H.

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Cole, Norman

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Colegate, W. A.

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Hay John

  Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Markham, Major S. F.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Heath, Edward

  Marples, A. E.

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

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

  Crouch, R. F.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Maude, Angus

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Maudling, R.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Maydom, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Mellor, Sir John

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

  Robertson, Sir David

  Teeling, W.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

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

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Russell, R. S.

  Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Turner, H. E. L.

  Nutting, Anthony

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Turton, R. H.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Odey, G. W.

  Scott, R. Donald

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Shepherd, William

  Wade, D. W.

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

  Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Partridge, E.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Peto, Brig, C. H. M.

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Wellwood, W.

  Piokthorn, K. W. M.

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Stevens, G. P.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Profumo, J. D.

  Storey, S.

  Wills, G.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Redmayne, M.

  Studholme, H. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Summers, G. S.

  Mr. Butcher and Major Conant.

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Delargy, H. J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Adams, Richard

  Dodds, N. N.

  Janner, B.

  Albu, A. H.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

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

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Jack (Rolherham)

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Keenan, W.

  Baird, J.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Kenyon, C.

  Balfour. A.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Belhnger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Ewart, R.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Bence, C. R.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Kinley, J.

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Field, W. J.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Benson, G.

  Finch, H. J.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Beswick, F.

  Follick, M.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Foot, M. M.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Blackburn, F.

  Forman, J. C.

  Upton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Logan, D. G.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Boardman, H.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  MeGhee, H. G.

  Bowles, F. G.

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

  McInnes, J.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Gibson, C. W.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Brockway, A. F.

  Glanville, James

  McLeavy, F.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Gooch, E. G.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Mallalieu, E L. (Brigg)

  Burke, W. A.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

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

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Grey, C. F.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Carmichael, J.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Mitchison, G. R

  Champion, A. J.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Monslow, W.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Moody, A. S.

  Clunie, J.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

  Cooks, F. S.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Morley, R.

  Coldrick, W.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

  Moyle, A.

  Collick, P. H.

  Hastings, S.

  Murray, J. D.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Nally, W.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Holman, P.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Daines, P.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Oliver, G. H.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Padley, W. E.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Pannell, Charles

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Paton, J.

  Deer, G.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Pearson, A.

  2040

  2041

  Peart, T. F.

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Poole, C. C.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Viant, S. P.

  Porter, G.

  Slater, J.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

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

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Weitzman, D.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Wells, Perey (Faversham)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Steele, T.

  West, O. G.

  Rankin, John

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Reeves, J.

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Wigg, George

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Rhodes, H.

  Stross, Dr. Barnett

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Swingler, S. T.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pansras, N.)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Ross, William

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Royle, G.

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Yates, V. F.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Short, E. W.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Timmons, J.

  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL
Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
6.48 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed with the Bill, perhaps I may say that I have considered very carefully the Motion for re-committal which stands on the Order Paper. As in similar cases in the past, I have had to consider the Amendments in respect of which it is sought to recommit the Bill. I have come to the conclusion that the only Amendment I could select, having regard to the discussions which took place in the Committee, is the one standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) to Clause 4, page 5, line 8. If the right hon. Gentleman would confine his Motion to that Amendment I would allow that to be put to the House.
Motion made, and Question,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 4, page 5, line 8, standing in the name of Mr. Glenvil Hall.—
put, and agreed to.
Bill immediately considered in Committee.
[Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL

  Clause 4.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS.)
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, at the end, to insert:
  Subsection (5) of section one of the said Act of 1944 shall have effect, in its application to this Act by virtue of the last foregoing subsection, as if for the words "fifty-two pounds" there were substituted the words "one hundred and four pounds."
  This is a small Amendment which may be said to be consequential upon another change which was made in the Bill during the Committee stage. Section 1 (5) of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, defines, among other things, the modifications for a dependant in respect of whom the higher rate of pension may be payable to the pensioner. It says that, among other qualifications, his total income from any other source must not exceed £52 a year.
  This limit on a dependant's income of £52 a year, which is the basis of qualification for the higher rate of pension for a pensioner who has such a dependant, was in line with the disregard of other income in the case of pensioners themselves for the purposes of the ceiling under previous legislation. In Committee the disregard of other income in the case of the pension itself for the purposes of the Bill was increased from £52 to £104, and we now submit that a corresponding adjustment should be made in the provisions of Section 1 (5) of the 1944 Act in so far as it is applicable to the provisions of the Bill.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The Amendment, as has been accurately said by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), would have the effect, for the purposes of this Bill, of providing that a person whose income does not exceed £104 should be eligible to qualify as a dependant for the purposes of the increase granted to the pensioner under the Bill.
  The arguments in favour of and against the Amendment are somewhat neatly balanced. On the one hand, it could be argued that, if we so amend the Bill, the effect will be that somebody whose income is in the zone between £52 and £104 could be a dependant for the purposes of this Bill but not a dependant for the purposes of the previous legislation. On the other hand, as the hon. Member for Sowerby has said, the change effected by a Government Amendment during the Committee stage in the amount of income of the pensioner to be disregarded for the purposes of the income limits raises fairly clearly the question as to whether a similar amount of income should be disregarded in the case of a pensioner's dependant.
  The arguments are fairly equally balanced, and, so far as we can ascertain, remarkably few people would be affected either way. As there are very few people concerned, the cost of the Amendment would be trivial. I have considered the position which arises and the somewhat neat balance between the conflicting considerations, and, on balance, it seems that it would be better to have the same income limits for both the pensioner and his dependant under the Bill, and, consequently, if the Committee so desires, I shall offer no objection to the Amendment.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I should like to express, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, our pleasure that the Government has seen fit to accept this small Amendment. We were well aware that it amounted to very little but, nevertheless, it amounts to something, and in these days, with the Government
  2044
  that we have, we must be grateful for what we can get.
  Between us in the Committee stage we improved the Bill as far as we could within the limits of a very tightly drawn Money Resolution. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this makes the Bill a little tidier for one thing and, remembering the deterioration in the value of money, it is a tardy act of justice, too. Therefore, for what it is worth—we do not want to look a gift horse in the mouth and appear not to be thankful for small mercies—we are grateful for this and only wish that the hon. Gentleman had had an opportunity to go further with other Amendments which we should have liked to move had it been possible, which would have been much more acceptable to thousands of people who, even under these provisions, are suffering great hardship.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, with Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. Anthony Marlowe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Might I draw your attention to an Amendment which I had down for consideration on the Report stage?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): That Amendment is out of order, because it increases the charge.
  Mr. Marlowe: I appreciate that there may be some difficulties about the Amendment, but is there not some misapprehension—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot argue that on Third Reading.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (re-committed) BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (re-committed) BILL

  Clause 11.—(DISPOSAL OF DUTIES, ETC.)
  6.57 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move, in page 5, line 37, to leave out from the beginning, to "all," and to insert:
  "Save for such sums as may be required for any disbursements permitted by section ten of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866."
  This Amendment, the next seven Amendments to the Clause and the Amendment to the Twelfth Schedule have the same effect, and perhaps I may be allowed to explain it all on the first one. The effect is to put back into the Bill the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866.
  It was suggested by the Comptroller and Auditor General that it would be more convenient from the point of view of the Public Accounts Committee to have Customs receipts dealt with under the Act of 1866 together with other Customs receipts than to have them dealt with under the Bill. In the light of the view of the Comptroller and Auditor General as to the convenience to the Public Accounts Committee we thought it better to adopt the Amendment which, I understand, will have that effect.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 3, leave out from beginning, to "any."
  In line 8, leave out from "be," to end of line 10, and insert:
  "dealt with as provided in section ten of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866."
  In line 11, leave out from "in," to end of line 19, and insert:
  "section ten of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866, or in subsection (1) of this section as to the disbursements which may be made out of money collected or received for or on account of customs or excise."
  In line 20, leave out "or allowed as aforesaid."
  In line 21, leave out payments or expenses, "and insert" "such disbursements."
  In line 22, leave out "said."
  In line 22, after "Account," insert "aforesaid."—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 12 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 28.—(ENTRY OF GOODS ON IMPORTATION.)
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 15, line 18, to leave out from the first "the," to "then," in line 19, and to insert:
  "Commissioners are satisfied that the inaccuracy was inadvertent and immaterial except for statistical purposes."
  This Amendment arises out of the discussions in the Select Committee during the course of which a form of words was suggested to deal with cases of inaccurate statements made in respect of non-dutiable articles relating, that is to say, to information desired mainly for statistical or currency control purposes. The form of words put in at the time did not seem quite appropriate—it was put in on the spur of the moment—and we think that this Amendment will protect accidental statements made without any intent either to defraud the Revenue or with any improper intent. A person disclosing an error will be covered by this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 29 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 37.—(RELIEF FROM DUTY OF CERTAIN GOODS FROM CHANNEL ISLANDS.)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 21, line 10, to leave out from "importation," to "a," in line 12.
  This Amendment and the one which follows it are designed to bring the position of the law with respect to declarations made in the Channel Islands into line with current practice. The law as it stands might appear to impose on the Governors the responsibility for what appears in the declaration. The practice for many years has been that these

  2047
  exalted functionaries should only have to satisfy themselves that the formalities have been preserved. This Amendment brings the matter into conformity with common practice, and, I think, common sense.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 13, at end, insert
  "that a declaration in such form and containing such particulars as the Commissioners may direct has been made before a magistrate of that island by the person exporting the goods therefrom."—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 38 to 207 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 208.—(MIXING OF OILS.)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 120, line 20, at the end, to insert:
  Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any heavy oils other than fuel oils, gas oils and kerosene.
  This Amendment is again intended to bring the law into conformity with current practice. As the Committee is aware, it is forbidden to mix petrol with other spirits, but, in fact, in practice that mixture takes place, among other things in the manufacture of what is I believe called upper cylinder lubricant. The intention of this Amendment is to exempt that normal and well accepted practice which has for many years been carried on in disregard of the law.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 209 to 321 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedules 1 to 11 agreed to.

  Twelfth Schedule.—(REPEALS.)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 222, line 45, column 3, to leave out from "words," to the end of line 47.
  This Amendment, as I indicated at the time is consequential on the Amendments which the Committee has already accepted to the Schedule.
  Amendment agreed to
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Joint Committee and on re-committal), considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I only want to say that I think somebody on this side of the House ought to say a word of thanks to those people who have worked so hard to carry this Measure through, and how fortunate it is that the Government, when they wish to get a Measure of this sort through, have an Opposition who are perfectly prepared to facilitate its passage. This Bill has 321 Clauses and 12 Schedules, all of which have been dealt with in the space of half an hour or so without any speeches, except from the Financial Secretary.
  I think it provides a good opportunity of showing how the House of Commons can facilitate the passage of such legislation and of giving a direct lie to those who suggest that there are hon. Members on this side who seize upon legislation for the purpose of obstructing the work of the House of Commons. If that were so, we should surely have chosen this Bill for such a purpose when we should have been engaged for weeks on end in dealing with it, and Parliament would have had no holiday at all.
  As it is, we all feel—in view of the work done by the Select Committee and by the original Committee on the Bill—that this is a Measure which we should do all we can to facilitate. In these circumstances, and in view of the confusion surrounding the Government's time-table it would be wrong for anyone to speak as lengthily as one would like on this matter. It will be remembered that I took a little time on Second Reading. I am not going into the points I then raised because I hope that in the Finance Bill next year we shall have the opportunity of putting right the various anomalies which now exist and which are conveniently codified for us in this monumental work. Therefore, I hope the House will give the Bill a unanimous and speedy Third Reading.
  7.10 p.m.
  Major Sydney Markham: I should like to say how much we on this side appreciate the words which have just come from such a discriminating and helpful quarter. All that we hope is

  2049
  that this helpfulness will be continued in other directions, and then we shall all be satisfied.
  7.11 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want to be outdone either by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) or by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Major Markham) in valediction to this Bill. A great many people over the last year or two—indeed, more than two years—since the late Sir Stafford Cripps set inquiries on foot in this direction, have done an enormous amount of devoted work to tidy up what I described on the Second Reading as "the jungle of the law" on this subject. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) and a number of hon. Members and others representing industry and business collaborated in these efforts.
  They considered it for some months, and a Select Committee of both Houses examined the matter in the greatest detail. It would be a trifle churlish if I failed at this stage to express the gratitude of the Government, and I hope I may say of the whole House, to the very large number of people who have done a great deal of hard and difficult work in making the law clear.
  It will be of the greatest advantage to those who are concerned with business and industry in this country to have the law on this subject reasonably clear for perhaps the first time in our history. They and we are grateful to those who have done this work. I hope I may include in these remarks the devoted officers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, without whose technical skill and devotion to duty it would not have been possible to make headway. I trust that we can now speed it on its way, on what I might describe as its "errand of mercy."
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL
Committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Butcher]—for Tomorrow.

PRISON BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
7.14 p.m.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Mr. George Benson: On a point of order. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill is not a Consolidation Bill. I do so on the ground that it makes a major change in the law of this country. I know that there are a number of slight Amendments—"corrections and improvements" is the phrase, I think—embodied in the Bill, but when a Bill contains a very serious alteration in the law of the land I do not think it can be permitted to go through this House as a Consolidation Bill.
I would draw your attention to Clause 1 which says:
"All powers and jurisdiction in relation to prisons and prisoners"—
that is an extremely wide phrase—
"which before the commencement of the Prison Act, 1877, were exercisable by any other authority shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be exercisable by the Secretary of State."
That is also an extremely wide provision. At the time mentioned, 1877, there was upon the Statute Book an Act which gave power to put to death any of a particular group of prisoners who escaped from prison. It was the Act Edward I, 23, known as "De Frangentibus Prisonam." The Act was in force in 1877 and it was not repealed until 1948.
I therefore suggest, with great respect, that a Clause which gives the Home Secretary all powers and jurisdictions exercisable by any authority in 1877 reenacts in effect the statute to which I have referred, and that after such a major change in the law it is impossible for the Bill to be classed as a Consolidation Measure.
Mr. Speaker: The whole House is indebted to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) for his interesting historical researches. So far as the point of order is concerned, I am bound by the Consolidation Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, within which the Bill falls. Therefore I must rule it to be a Bill which has gone through the stages of a Joint Committee, and certification by the

2051
Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker as containing only minor improvements. Therefore it is, within the meaning of the Act, a Consolidation Measure, and debate must be conducted on those lines.
Mr. Benson: Without in any way reflecting upon you, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Lord Chancellor has made a very bad mistake in certifying the Bill as a Consolidation Measure and that the Bill is not a Consolidation Bill because it makes a major change in the law. If the Lord Chancellor has made a mistake this House has no right to be robbed of its powers to debate a Bill which makes a radical change in the law.
Mr. Speaker: As most hon. Members know, there is the report of the Joint Committee which examined the Bill in detail, and there is the report of the Lord Chancellor and myself. The statute to which the hon. Member refers is of very ancient date and it sounds to me, at first blush, a very proper statute to be consolidated with other and later statutes. I must rule this a Consolidation Bill.
Mr. Benson: The statute to which I have referred was repealed after 1877, and prior to the introduction of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker: Then it is not revived by the Bill.
7.18 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): The Bill consolidates a number of Acts relating to prisons and other institutions. A Joint Committee has reported that it consolidates the existing law, with such corrections and improvements as are properly authorised under the Consolidation Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949. While I do not for a moment trespass on your Ruling, it might be proper that I should mention, in order to avoid misunderstanding, that when Clause 1 says:
"All powers and jurisdiction in relation to prisons and prisoners which before the commencement of the Prison Act, 1877 were exercisable by any other authority shall — be exercisable by the Secretary of State,"
it means all powers which are still exercised.
Therefore, if there was an Act of Parliament which was repealed in 1948, it cannot possibly be revived by this Bill.
2052
That is a simple question of legal construction of a statute, and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) need have no fear in regard to it. The Bill is a matter of pure consolidation.
Committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Redmayne]—for Tomorrow.

COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
7.20 p.m.
Mr. Charles Royle: Before this Bill receives a Second Reading I wonder if the Attorney-General would be kind enough to deal with one point? I have been wondering why the Legal Aid and Advice Bill was not included in this Consolidating Measure. It seems to me that, when this question is being considered, the most recent legislation which deals with costs in criminal cases should be consolidated within this Bill.
The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): I am afraid I cannot give any helpful answer except to this extent: That this Bill deals with costs in criminal cases, and to have the Legal Aid Bill consolidated with it would not, on the face of it, seem appropriate. Of course, there are provisions as regards costs in criminal cases in the Legal Aid Bill, but the title alone suggests that it would not be appropriate to include that in this consolidation.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I do not know whether this is an appropriate occasion on which to raise a matter relating to costs in criminal cases. If not, no doubt I shall be told as I proceed, Mr. Speaker. A certain amount of disquiet has been caused in legal and other circles by the manner in which those parts of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, which referred to the power of courts to award costs—
Mr. Speaker: I regret that I am obliged to interrupt the hon. Member. This is a consolidating Measure within the meaning of the Consolidation Procedure Act of 1949. The only subject which can be discussed at this stage is whether it is preferable to consolidate the existing law on this subject or whether that law should be left scattered about in the various statutes which now embody it. There is no other matter which is in
order at this stage. Perhaps the hon. Member can find an opportunity at another time of bringing his important point to the notice of the House.
Mr. S. Silverman: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker, but I noticed in perhaps a rather too casual study of the Bill recently that in that part of the Bill now before the House which refers to parts of statutes repealed by the present Bill there is a reference to a relevant Section in the 1948 Act. I thought that what I have to say might be relevant to that because I would like to know how, under the present consolidating Measure, the provisions substituted for those provisions will apply. It may very well be that under this Bill the position is rectified, and it may possibly be that the parts of the 1948 Act which are repealed by this Bill were repealed in order to deal with this very point. I do not know. I raise it purely in that spirit and not because I wish to press the point if it should turn out not to be the proper occasion to do so.
What the 1948 Act did was to give for the first time, I think—certainly for the first time in that form—power to criminal courts where the defendant was acquitted an absolute discretion to award costs, or such costs as they thought fit, to the successful defendants in those cases. Those powers apply to the criminal courts at any stage and to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
When the Act leaves the discretion in the courts as an absolute unfettered discretion, it seems to me that at some stage there was a circular or a document of advice circulated by the Home Office or by the Lord Chief Justice in which the opinion was expressed that these powers ought not to be exercised except in exceptional cases—
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman because that
2054
is not in order on this stage of the Bill. The position is that the contents of this Bill must be presumed to be the existing law on this subject, that there is no new matter in it, and that therefore it is a pure question of consolidation or not. The hon. Member must get another opportunity for raising his point.
Committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Redmayne]—for Tomorrow.

AGRICULTURE
Agriculture Act (Part 1) Extension of Period Order, 1952 [copy presented 19th June], approved.—[Mr. Nugent.]
Agricultural Lime Schemes (Extension of Period) Order, 1952 [copy presented 27th June], approved.—[Mr. Nugent.]

HOUSING
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Redmuyne.]
7.27 p.m.
Mr. William Irving: I want to raise tonight, Mr. Speaker, the question of housing, not generally, but particularly to the Borough of Tottenham.
The House will recall that in the days towards the end of the war the Government of the day introduced a Bill for local authorities to provide temporary bungalows. In Tottenham, as elsewhere, the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, was taken advantage of. Some 50 houses were erected in Tottenham on one site and two of them have subsided. I ought to point out that the Ministry of Works are responsible for the erection of those bungalows and that the local government is responsible for the cost of sites, roads, paths and other services.
After erection the bungalows were handed over to the local authoriy which became responsible for maintenance and repairs. The instructions set out in the Memorandum issued in 1944 provided that additional expenditure should be incurred by the Ministry if repairs and maintenance exceeded £8. In the case

2055
of Tottenham the expenditure amounted to £16 per annum, in addition to which the local authority paid to the Ministry £23 10s. per annum per bungalow. Paragraph 9 of Appendix 4 of the Ministry Memorandum provides that the local authority may apply to the Ministry for additional expenditure, but that has already been done in the case of Tottenham.
In the case of two of the 50 bungalows built on the site in Tottenham, the borough engineer of the Tottenham Borough Council pointed out at the time the land was prepared that it had been a refuse chute and therefore was likely to subside. It was necessary to reinforce the concrete base. Unfortunately this was not done by the Ministry of Works, and consequently two of the bungalows have broken their sides. The tenants have had to be removed and rehoused elsewhere. Before the houses were erected by the Ministry of Works, the Tottenham Borough Council engineer pointed out that this land had been a refuse chute, and, therefore, likely to subside. This happened and the concrete bases were not reinforced. The result has been that two of the houses have broken their backs.
This is a very serious problem in Tottenham, because the housing position is very acute and the cost of the immediate work should not be borne under the amount laid down in the memorandum for repairs and maintenance. The site was not satisfactory, and this was known to the Ministry of Works. Yet they used the site.
I should also like to draw attention to a third temporary bungalow in Tottenham, known locally as a prefab, where the plan drawn by the engineer shows the level of the concrete bases six inches higher than that erected by the Ministry. Flooding has taken place on several occasions, as it was expected it would for the land is low lying, and, consequently, that bungalow will have to be dismantled or the base will have to be built costing £175.
The Ministry say that it is in the hands of the Tottenham Borough Council to dismantle and erect this bungalow elsewhere, but, frankly, Britain's dollar position is better than Tottenham's land position. There are more dollars in this country than there is land in Tottenham, so much
2056
so that the borough council have had to buy land outside the boundary to house a proportion of their people. Something like 8,000 are on the waiting list and there is no land available at all.
There has been flooding on several occasions. The Ministry's officers have been down to see it, and though they were told that it was an old refuse dump and that the base required to be reinforced that was not done. Therefore, the Tottenham Borough Council said, rightly in my opinion, that the expenses ought to be borne by the Ministry of Health, as it was at the time this happened, and now by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government or by the Ministry of Works. The cost of the dismantling and erecting of the bungalow is £850. Obviously that cannot be met out of the amounts sanctioned in the memorandum to which I have referred.
The Ministry seem to think that the cost for this bungalow can be met by the local authority. The Ministry's excuse for not paying for this work is that they have no funds available. But neither has the borough council. This expenditure of £850 plus the £175 cannot be met out of revenue. The Tottenham Borough Council will have to go to the Ministry for a loan if it were so desired, and, therefore, the Tottenham Borough Council has a very strong case for saying that no funds are available.
The Tottenham Borough Council being reasonable, offered a compromise. They said that they would carry out the work provided the Ministry found £200, which is a reasonable estimate. That has been refused, and I think the Ministry are being very unreasonable. The defective work was approved by the officers of the Ministry of Works when the bungalows were constructed on land which was a refuse dump, and the land has subsided due to the fact that the concrete base was not reinforced. Therefore, this expenditure should not come out of the amount allowed for repairs and maintenance, but should be placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Ministry.
With regard to the other case which I mentioned, the base there is six inches higher than that erected by the Ministry of Works, and, therefore, in all the circumstances the Tottenham Borough Council are being very fair about this. The Ministry ought to be a bit more

2057
reasonable than is shown in the correspondence. There may be some queries as to why the hon. Member for Wood Green raises the question of Tottenham bungalows, but the hon. Member for Wood Green not only represents that area but one-third of Tottenham as well, because one-third of Tottenham is in the division of Wood Green, and these bungalows happen to be in the Parliamentary Division. Therefore, it is my job to raise it in this House, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to announce some concession in this matter, which is due to negligence on the part of the Ministry of Works.
7.35 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Originally I had no intention of taking part in this debate, but, seeing the House has got to the Adjournment rather earlier than is usual, I thought we could not let the occasion go without saying something on this important matter of housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Irving) is to be congratulated on raising this very important subject, and I want to support him in both the cases he has mentioned and on the general issue. I happen to know the peculiar problems and difficulties of Tottenham because, for a number of years, I lived in that particular borough and at the moment live in the adjoining borough of Edmonton. So I can substantiate the points that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green.
I believe that this is part of a wider problem which affects almost all the London boroughs, and particularly the blitzed towns and cities of this country. It was in the main the blitzed cities and towns which were given supplies of these temporary bungalows and prefabricated houses. Originally it was suggested that it would be for a short period, and I believe the lives of the bungalow were stated to be 10 years. In West Ham we have the unenviable reputation of being the worst blitzed borough in the country. It follows that we have a larger number of these hutments than any other borough, and that has, in fact, become a liability to the council, because we are in the invidious position of having these hutments, which are far from satisfactory, taking a number of people off the actual housing list, but in reality these people are not satisfactorily or adequately housed.
2058
In West Ham we have somewhere in the region of 14,000 people on the urgent priority list, and if we take the number who are unsatisfactorily housed the total would be well over 20,000. West Ham is having to make do and mend with these temporary bungalows, and how long they will keep going nobody knows, nor how long it will be before these people will have to be rehoused in decent houses. All the time that these dwellings are occupied they have to find the abnormal charges for repairs, redecoration and the like.
That may not seem much to a borough that is financially stable, but with, as in West Ham, a council that has a rate of 26s. in the £, and which has lost over one-third of its rateable income because of the blitz, it seems very unfair that the council should have to put up with these temporary hutments and have to find the abnormal cost of repairs and redecoration, and that because of the loss of rateable income they must put up their rates to the astronomical figure I have mentioned.
It is about time that the Ministry looked at this problem of the blitzed towns and cities in relation to housing. It is about time that some special assistance generally was given. I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary for what he and his Ministry have done financially for West Ham. I appreciate that we are the only council to be getting a special grant, and I acknowledge the efforts that the Parliamentary Secretary made when I raised a similar debate on the Adjournment at the commencement of the year.
But that in no way mitigates the general problem that confronts all the blitzed towns and cities. They are in very great difficulties with regard to housing. They now find that houses which they thought were decent and fit for people to live in, are beginning to fall down and have to be condemned as unsafe because the foundations have been shaken and dislodged. I refer more to the Nissen hut type of building, where the council are continually having to put in new arrangements to try to stop the damp. I see many of these places where the concrete floors are literally swimming in damp and moisture, and where the people have to put out their furniture to dry in the sunshine because of the dampness on the floor.

2059
Surely, something can be done to give these areas an increased building quota and additional financial assistance to enable them to get on with building a larger number of houses. Surely, some building trade workers could be made available to help them to get on with the job of building.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) discovered recently, as the result of a Question, the amazing fact that some thousands of building trade workers are unemployed.
Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The latest available figures show that more than 4,200 building workers are unemployed in the London area.
Mr. Lewis: That shows how ludicrous the position is. Almost every London borough, and particularly my own, is urgently in need of houses, but for a number of reasons, either because of financial commitments, shortage of materials or shortage of building trade workers, cannot get on with the job of rebuilding and yet we find that over 4,000 building trade workers are unemployed.
Surely something can be done to assist councils to have these workers, if not directed, encouraged to go to the areas where the houses are needed, so that they can get on with the all-important job of rehousing the people. Many of them have not only been blitzed out, but dozens of working class people have been blitzed out as many as five and six times and have now been put into what they term the "rabbit hutch" of a Nissen hut, and do not know how long they are to remain there. For all these reasons, I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to give special consideration to the all-important job of rehousing the blitzed people of London.
7.46 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I am very pleased to have this opportunity of supporting what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis). He has put his finger on a real problem so far as many Metropolitan boroughs, and many of the local authorities on the outskirts of the London County Council area, are concerned.
My hon. Friend has referred to the problem that has been created by the
2060
temporary bungalows. At the end of the war, the Metropolitan borough of Lambeth, part of which I have the honour to represent, made a very special effort to provide the housing accommodation that was then much needed. In that respect, this borough was perhaps a pioneer, because we employed American Service men, still serving in the American Forces, to put up some of the temporary bungalows of the kind to which my hon. Friend has referred.
These bungalows were never expected to last for more than a very limited period of time. Unfortunately, the people, who were only too pleased to avail themselves of the opportunity of living in these Nissen huts, now find that those huts are, to all intents and purposes, virtually uninhabitable. My hon. Friend referred also to the problem of damp. There is in these bungalows an unusual degree of condensation, which creates these damp and unsatisfactory conditions.
I am advised by those who are competent to express an opinion on the matter that it is virtually impossible, except at a prohibitive cost, to cope with this problem of condensation, which leads to the saturation of furniture and to water running down the walls and windows on to the concrete floors. It is difficult, in those circumstances, for the people living in the Nissen huts to do anything at all about it. It is even more difficult for the borough engineer or the local housing authorities to provide the sanitary living conditions which these people have a right to expect.
Some local authorities have devised a system whereby people who have lived in these bungalows for five, six or seven years, go to the top of the housing list. Unfortunately, however, quite a number of people, although they know of the conditions which prevail in these bungalows, are, nevertheless, still anxious to live in these conditions because they prefer to live in a Nissen hut, subject to those difficulties, rather than continue in their present even more difficult circumstances. It therefore leads to the difficult state of affairs that people who were given priority in 1945 are now having to be given an equal degree of priority for rehousing in 1952. This is aggravated by the fact that people who are desperately in need of housing accommodation will, nevertheless, agree to live in

2061
the Nissen huts to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North has referred.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will lend a sympathetic ear to the case which has been submitted to him tonight. He is perhaps in a better position than most of us who understand the difficulties of the problem we are now discussing. I hope he will not mind my referring to the fact that for some considerable time before his elevation to ministerial rank he was connected with the building industry. In dealing with these matters he is not dealing with something with which he is not personally acquainted. I very much hope that he will give favourable consideration to the case which has been put forward tonight, a case which, fortunately, by the accident Of the Parliamentary time-table we have a little more opportunity of developing than otherwise would have been possible.
7.52 p.m.
Mr. William Keenan: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on this problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Irving). It raises a question which has given me some concern for a long time. As we are dealing with temporary houses erected in the course of the last seven or more years, this debate provides an opportunity for the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us the intention of the Ministry in this connection.
Some of the prefabricated temporary houses, particularly of the American type, even the Phoenix and the Uni-Seco have almost papier mâiché exteriors. I live in the borough of Bootle at the north end of Liverpool, next to the constituency I represent. We lost, I believe, 2,500 out of 16,000 houses apart from the loss of schools, "pubs" and about half the churches in the town. We have 800 prefabricated houses. Some were started in 1945 but there were others started, I believe, at the end of 1944 and they supposed to have a life of 10 years. I do not think that the American type will last for that time, unless they have a lot of attention.
Any hon. Member interested in local government will be anxious to know the approach of the Ministry to the problem
2062
in towns like that and in a city like Liverpool, which has a 1,000 or more such houses. What will the Ministry do to replace them? Already local authorities have to spend considerable sums on these houses. They are heavily subsidised by local rates and very few were let at an economic rent. Their life is near termination, particularly the American type, which will not last for 10 years without a lot of money being spent on them. My hon. Friend who spoke of prefabricated houses which had five years' life and were not built on a solid enough foundation. What do the Ministry intend to do about that?
I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking on this matter, to which I have given some attention. There are about 150,000 such houses in this country and local authorities would like to know what the Ministry intend to do to replace the habitations as some of them have a life even shorter than 10 years.
7.56 p.m.
Mr. Peter Roberts: I should like to widen the debate slightly. On a number of occasions I have tried to obtain the Adjournment on the burning question of housing, particularly in Sheffield. I hope, therefore, that the House will bear with me when I put a few questions on this topic to my hon. Friend.
The position in Sheffield is extraordinary. The latest figures I can obtain are for March, 1952, and up to that date, of houses commenced during the time of the previous Government. Since 1945, and during the tenure of the last Government, the number of houses completed amounted to 7,600. The Minister will know that before the war under Conservative and allied Governments we in Sheffield were able to build 5,000 houses a year. Therefore, the record of 7,600 is not a very good one during that period.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton rose—
Mr. Roberts: No, I cannot give way as I want to put these facts to the Minister to find out what is the present policy.
In Sheffield, we are faced with a very low housing output. What worries me is that other parts of the country during the seven years since the war, in proportion, seem to have done so much better. For example, Norwich during that period in which Sheffield completed 7,600 houses, has completed 4,800, but the size of the

2063
two towns is very different. In Sheffield, we have a population of 500,000 and in Norwich it is 120,000. I am surprised to see that the number of houses built and allocated to Sheffield is only 7,600 compared with 4,000 in Norwich.
I raised this matter with the previous Government on a number of occasions. The answers I received were a little tortuous but so far as I could follow them they were to the effect that if Sheffield could show that she could build more houses more licences would be granted. The Socialist controlled council, on the other hand, said that they were doing their best and wanted more licences before they could build more houses. The Socialist administrators went round in circles and we did not get the houses to which we were entitled.
I doubt very much whether my hon. Friend will have the figures at his fingertips tonight, but I hope that he will be able to give some of the latest figures which we shall be able to publicise in Sheffield as we are anxious to know what is the policy of the Government towards housing in Sheffield. First, am I right in supposing that the Government are anxious to see as many privately-built houses as possible put up in comparison with the number of houses built to let by the local authority? My hon. Friend will be aware that the council at the moment is sticking to its own ratio which was laid down under the previous Administration.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether the retention of that lower figure is entirely the responsibility of the Sheffield City Council or whether there are any instructions from his Department on that point. I ask that because I feel very sincerely that if the Sheffield authorities will not take advantage of the assistance and the drive which my hon. Friend and my right hon Friend are making in this respect we shall find that licences and materials will go to other authorities.
That is the danger—that other places such as Birmingham and areas which are building a large number of houses may take the labour and materials away from Sheffield because Sheffield is not at present using all the appropriate machinery or the proper policy to bring houses to Sheffield. Therefore, I should
2064
welcome any guidance which the Parliamentary Secretary can give us on this point.
There is no doubt that under the last Government Sheffield had a very raw deal with regard to housing. We are now looking forward with confidence to the present Administration. I should like my hon. Friend tonight to tell us in Sheffield whether if we can, by private enterprise, build more houses to let or to sell, under the recognised ceiling, those houses will come out of the allocation which Sheffield would otherwise receive; or whether, if private enterprise can build more houses, and the local authority can build to its maximum, we shall then be able to obtain a greater number of houses than if we follow the policy and the provisions at present obtaining.
Any help which my hon. Friend can give now or later will be very welcome. I hope that he will bear in mind more strongly than did his predecessors under the previous Administration that Sheffield has a very particular duty to perform. The steel and steel centre which Sheffield represents require the provision of houses just as much as the coal miners require houses which the Coal Board are now putting up. Agricultural workers are, rightly, being given priority in housing. It seems to me that Sheffield and the Sheffield industries have not been given, that priority or for that matter that encouragement which we in Sheffield feel so much we are entitled to have.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the hon. Member make it quite clear whether, in his opinion, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government should bring pressure to bear on the local authority in Sheffield to depart or deviate from whatever policy it has been following in the past?
Mr. Roberts: I want to know whether, if the authority keeps to the present provisions which the Socialist council is proposing to follow, it will thereby lose licences and materials. In other words, if the local authority were to allow private enterprise to have a greater proportion of houses, would that greater proportion be deducted from the licences or allocations given to the local authority?
I believe that the answer which my hon. Friend will give is that if they followed the course of allowing the building of more private enterprise houses we

2065
should get more houses, and that the restrictive and reactionary policy of the Socialist council in Sheffield is having the result of our getting fewer houses. That is the question I should like my hon. Friend to answer. I apologise for widening the scope of this debate and introducing this very pertinent question, but hon. Members know as well as I do how difficult it is to secure the Adjournment. Accordingly, I hope that they will bear with me in putting these questions to the Minister and in saying that we know and are confident that Sheffield will get a better deal from this Administration than it got from the last one.
8.5 p.m.
Mr. J. A. Sparks: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Irving) is to be congratulated on having secured the Adjournment at so early an hour on what is one of the most important problems with which this House has to deal. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary must have thought, when this subject came to be debated at so early an hour, that the debate would obviously be very much wider than that very narrow point which my hon. Friend sought originally to discuss. The point he has raised is a very important one, connected as it is with the temporary housing policy which this House has pursued since 1945.
As has been said, a considerable majority of the temporary houses that have been erected in past years were designed to remain in existence for only a short time. The period, in the case of most, was 10 years and in the case of aluminium houses a little longer. There are nearly 160,000 of these temporary dwellings erected in many parts of the country. Some of them have now been up for about six or seven years so that within about four years many will have served their 10-year period of life and it will be necessary to do something about them.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to indicate to the House whether his Department has this matter in hand because within three or four years the Department and the Minister will have to decide whether many of these temporary dwellings, having served their purpose, shall now be demolished and either the sites they occupy be developed
2066
or the tenants within them be transferred to other accommodation. In Greater London this offers a very great problem because there is obviously so little, if any, land available within the geographical boundaries of the local authorities on which to develop alternative housing schemes. Therefore, it means that when these prefabricated dwellings have to come down, the problem will face the local authority of rehousing the tenants who will have to leave those dwellings.
That is very difficult to do, especially where there is no more land for development and where the area is over-crowded and over-populated. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that in these congested areas there is a racket taking place arising directly from this serious shortage of housing accommodation. Therefore, we know quite well that unless the Minister is prepared to do something when the time comes for the people who will have to leave their temporary dwellings they will find great difficulty in getting, if they do not find it impossible to get, other accommodation.
To emphasise the seriousness of this position, I should like to mention a matter which I submitted to the Minister a few weeks ago. I sent him lists of vacant properties which have come into my hands from only one house agency of many practising in London. There are a number of lists, all quite recent, containing scores of vacant dwellings which are being offered to let upon tenancies. Most of them are controlled houses, and they are being offered to let for various reasons.
To emphasise the seriousness of this problem I think it would be of interest to the House if I quoted one or two cases, because I am not sure that the House is fully conversant with the extent of this profiteering. I mention this because the local authorities have the power to take action in these cases. I want the Minister to ginger up the local authorities and to see that they are taking action in matters of this kind.
At Stockwell there is a dwelling containing four rooms, a kitchen and bath. The rent is 10s. weekly and they want £325 for the contents. In the Holland Park area there are two rooms with kitchen and bath where the rent is £200

2067
per annum and three years' rent is required in advance. So that a tenant of a prefabricated dwelling, if he has to move out, would have to find £600 to become the tenant of this two-room flat with a kitchen and bath in the Holland Park area. In the Barking area two rooms with kitchen and bath are vacant at a rent of 18s. per week, and £380 is required for the contents. In the Hampstead area there are four rooms with kitchen and bath at a rent of £250 per annum and £700, or offer, is required for the contents. The contents are usually called furniture and fittings, but in many cases the correct designation would be junk.
In the Worcester Park area there is a flat of two bedrooms and one reception room with kitchen and bath at a rent of £154 a year and £850 is required for the contents. In the S.E.19 district there are three rooms with kitchen and bath, the rent is £3 2s. a week and £750 is required for the contents. At Brixton there are two rooms with kitchen and bath, the rent is 19s. 9d. weekly and £360 is required for the contents. I can assure the House that there are scores of these cases, and that I have not quoted the worst of them.
I sent this evidence to the Minister, asking if he would put an end to this obvious profiteering in the letting of these tenancies. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman said that he was considering the matter and would see whether he had administrative powers to deal with it. He said that local authorities could take action. In a letter to me, dated 4th July, he said:
"Where the purchase of any furniture, fittings or other articles is required as a condition of the grant of a tenancy of a controlled house or flat, and the price exceeds a reasonable price, it is an offence for which local authorities can prosecute in the courts."
I would like the Minister to give us some information about the number of prosecutions which local authorities have undertaken. I know he may not be able to give that information tonight, because he was not aware that this question would be put to him. But it is important that his Department should make inquiries into the problem to see to what extent local authorities are using their powers to restrain the profiteering which is going on throughout the Greater London area, and
2068
maybe in cities and towns in other parts of the country. What are the local authorites doing to stamp out this racket and to enable dwellings to be offered at a reasonable figure?
In this connection it is significant to note that not only have the local authorities power to deal with abuses of that kind, but, as a direct result of the powers of the Minister which he could delegate to them, they would have the power to extend the principle of requisitioning. Unfortunately, the Minister is working in the opposite direction. If the local authorities had extended powers to requisition a good deal of this profiteering would be prevented. Many of the places I have instanced have been empty for long periods, but the local authorities now can do nothing about it, because the Minister will not permit them the wider powers of requisitioning which he could give them if he so desired.
I urge the Minister to widen, instead of restricting, the powers of requisitioning in order that local authorities may stamp out this racket in our congested areas, and make available to homeless people the much needed accommodation which they are seeking and which so infrequently can be found. The Minister is already making investigations into the powers of requisitioning and I believe that he has also suggested to local authorities—in fact, he has required local authorities—not to requisition any more vacant accommodation, as he is very anxious to get rid of the whole requisitioning system as quickly as possible.
He has recommended to local authorities that whenever the occasion arises existing properties should be de-requisitioned and returned to their original owners. I want the Minister to be very careful about what he does in London in the congested areas. If anything will make for trouble that sort of policy definitely will. It could be done only by handing over the vacant house to the owner. To some extent I suppose one cannot blame an owner presented with vacant possession of his own house if he is tempted when he knows he can sell it for a fantastic price. The inducement to do that will be very strong. Does the Minister propose to hand over to the original owner the property with vacant possession so that the owner may profiteer —there is no other word for it—as a

2069
result of the existing serious shortage of housing accommodation in the built-up areas?
If these requisitioned properties are to be handed over with vacant possession where will the present tenants go? They must be re-housed somewhere. They cannot be turned out on to the street. There is no available accommodation for them in the built-up areas. It is true the Minister has suggested that local authorities may purchase some of these requisitioned dwellings which they considered to be suitable, and something may be said for that. But the Minister attaches to it a condition which makes it almost hopeless for local authorities to do any such thing, because he denies them the Exchequer grant should they purchase a requisitioned house.
I see no difference in making an Exchequer contribution for any dwelling, whether it be a new dwelling or a requisitioned dwelling, if it is an additional unit of accommodation acquired by the local authority. The Minister ought to make up his mind about the wider implications of this policy. He should encourage local authorities, in suitable cases, to purchase existing requisitioned property and he should make available to them the Exchequer block grant. In addition, the local authorities should provide the normal rate fund contribution. That would go a long way towards helping to reduce the extent of the requisitioning programme without injuring the tenant and without adding to the tendency towards profiteering about which I have complained.
I hope that as a result of our discussion tonight the Parliamentary Secretary will take our views back to the Ministry. I hope that he will get the Ministry to work to evolve a scheme for the replacement of existing temporary dwellings when their lifetime expires. I hope that he will be able to work out a proper plan for the replacement of this accommodation. If he does not he will find that the problem is on top of him before he is ready to deal with it.
I also appeal to him to reconsider his whole atttiude towards the requisitioning policy of the Government. A retraction of these requisitioning powers now in the congested areas of London and our big cities and towns is accentuating this profiteering in housing tenancies and
2070
sales. The way to stamp out some of these illegal and fantastic charges which are being demanded for premiums, fittings, and all the rest, is to give local authorities added requisitioning powers over vacant accommodation. Then I feel sure that these vacant places would become available at more reasonable rents. I conclude by expressing the view that this debate has been well worth while and I hope that it will help to contribute towards a solution of this problem.
8.23 p.m.
Mr. H. A. Price: During the last seven or eight months I have often been amazed at the temerity of Her Majesty's Opposition in the attitude which they have displayed towards the efforts which we on this side of the House have been making to clear up the mess which they left behind. Nobody listening to their speeches, either inside or outside this House, and nobody reading their literature, would think that they had the slightest responsibility for any of the problems with which we are grappling.
Those remarks apply in full measure to this debate. I am astonished at the temerity of hon. Gentlemen opposite in arranging a debate on this subject that is one upon which, more than any other I can think of, they are vulnerable. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) congratulated his hon. Friend for Wood Green (Mr. Irving). I doubt whether his colleagues on the Front Bench will congratulate him, though at the moment there is no one on the Front Bench opposite. I do not blame them. Discretion is the better part of valour. But I do not think that they will thank the hon. Member for Wood Green for exposing them to a three hour debate on this subject.
Every speech so far has been one in condemnation of the previous Government. The life of Nissen huts when first put up was supposed to be two years. We are being told that these huts are still in use. They should have been removed by the last Administration three or four years ago. It is their fault that the huts are still there, and not ours. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will not feel in the least guilty on the question of Nissen huts.

2071
The hon. Member for Acton quoted figures published by a firm of racketeers charging exorbitant rents, and no doubt premiums too, for accommodation. If he and his hon. Friends had done their job and kept their promises of 1945, these racketeers would have been out of business years ago.
Mr. Sparks: This sort of thing is far more rampant now since the Tory Government came into power than it was before.
Mr. Price: There is good reason for that. These racketeers know that their days are numbered. They have to get the money while the going is good. Hon. Members opposite cannot get away from their responsibilities. They promised this country 4 million houses in 10 years. They promised 400,000 houses a year for 10 years. But they did not get half way there.
During the last Election campaign they told us that we could not improve upon their performance. They said that 200,000 houses a year was the maximum. I wonder how many hon. Members remember the saying which was popular in the desert during the 8th Army campaign, "The difficult we do immediately. The impossible takes a little longer." The impossible has taken my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend eight months. Already they are half way towards the target which hon. Gentlemen opposite said it was impossible to achieve. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite are very good at dishing it out: they must learn to take it for a change.
The Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary are to be congratulated upon a magnificent effort. I have not the slightest doubt that if they ignore the misleading policy which hon. Gentlemen opposite are indicating, and if they continue upon the road which they have been treading for the past eight months, they will very soon reach their target of 300,000 houses, to the complete discomfiture of the Opposition. There is no doubt that they are on the right road.
Mr. Percy Shurmer: To the exclusion of churches, schools and hospitals.
Mr. Price: No. It is not to the exclusion of churches, schools and hospitals.
2072
That suggestion has been completely exploded. And the houses are not for the rich. Hon. Gentlemen will recall that it was said that we intended to build houses only for the rich. That fact is completely disproved by all the returns we have had so far. We are building more houses to let and a few more for purchase. Already there are 16,000 families comprising about 50,000 people occupying new houses which would not have existed had the Socialists won the last Election. Yet my hon. Friends opposite have the temerity to initiate a debate on housing.
I want to make three constructive suggestions, because of course there are some suggestions which can be made. My first is in connection with the Rent Restriction Acts. I suggest to my hon. Friends opposite that they should read the speech made by their noble Friend in another place not long ago.
Mr. George Jeger: We are not the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends.
Mr. Price: That is their fault, and not mine.
Mr. Jeger: We are very particular.
Mr. Price: So am I. If hon. Gentlemen opposite read the speech, which was one of the soundest speeches made on housing by a Socialist for years, because it was factual—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman proposes to deal with legislation. If so it would be out of order.
Mr. Price: No, Sir. I was merely about to suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite should read that speech which deals with the question of rent restriction.
Mr. Shurmer: Who made the speech?
Mr. Price: It would not be proper for me to mention the name. I think that it would be out of order.
The next point to which I wish to direct attention is one about which I suggest that good deal could be done. It is in reference to the self-help building societies which are becoming popular all over the country. They are meeting difficulties from reactionary local authorities.
Mr. Shurmer: No.
Mr. Price: Yes. In this connection the word "reactionary" means Socialist. I

2073
can quote a case which came to my notice only this morning. A self-help building society have obtained an option upon 4½ acres of land in Bromley. They are not being allowed to proceed because the majority of the members live in Lewisham. That is a pity. It is high time that that parochial outlook was dispensed with. Thirty houses could be built on this land. I ask my hon. Friend to convey to his right hon. Friend my view that it might be possible for him to encourage local authorities to assist the self-help building societies and not to hinder them in this way.
A third point which I want to make concerns my own borough, although I am sure it also concerns West Ham and other boroughs; and it is the problem of value payment sites. I urged the last Government to do something about this, and they did not; and I want this Government to take the opportunity of action where the previous Government failed. I can speak only for Lewisham, but in Lewisham there are about 1,600 value payment sites lying idle—small sites which are unsuitable for the local authority and are suitable only for private development.
The owners of those sites did not receive enough compensation to enable them to rebuild. There are 1,600 in Lewisham alone, and I have no means of estimating how many there are throughout the country. Would the Minister look at this problem to see if there is any way in which he can help the owners of these sites to build upon them? If there is, it will make a great contribution towards the solution of the housing problem, especially in bombed areas such as West Ham and Lewisham.
I urge my hon. Friend to continue along the path which he has been treading for the past eight months. The relaxations which he has been able to make are beginning to bear fruit, and I am sure that if he found it possible to introduce more relaxations they, too, would bear fruit. I support previous speakers in asking the Minister to see what can be done to persuade reactionary local authorities to use to the full the facilities which he has provided. Those who have used those facilities are producing figures very much more favourable than those of the past six years. Could not the Minister use those figures, or any other method which his fertile mind suggests,
2074
to encourage other authorities to use these facilities and thus increase the total housing accommodation available in the country?
8.33 p.m.
Mr. Percy Shurmer: There is no doubt that the greatest tragedy still facing this country is that of housing. I do not think anyone on this side of the House would quarrel with the Government if they could build 600,000 houses a year. No sane, sensible man, whatever his political opinions, would quarrel with any Government which could solve the housing problem if he was in close contact with those who are suffering from the housing shortage.
It was my intention earlier, when some of my hon. Friends were dealing simply with matters in their own constituencies, to speak briefly of some of the housing difficulties in Birmingham. I well remember that housing has been an important subject ever since I joined the council in 1921. Hon. Members opposite, however, have begun to get controversial and have told again the same old story about what the Socialist Government did, what they did not do, and what they ought to have done. It is a very old story, but hon. Members opposite have a lot to answer for when we recall the housing conditions which existed before the war, when we could have built many thousands of houses and when the builders were walking the streets out of work.
Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper rose—
Mr. Shurmer: I am going to get on with my speech. There is not the slightest doubt that we did not build the number of houses we could have built at that time when the building operatives were out of employment. Instead, jerry-built houses were built for sale, and then people had to leave them because they could not afford to pay for them. I could take hon. Members into districts in Birmingham where jerry-builders built houses for sale and where people had to be turned out of them because they could not afford to pay for them—and they were jerry-built houses which were nearly tumbling down.
It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to talk about what they did before the war and what they are doing now,

2075
but let us look at the position. We know full well that the situation in the building industry was the same as that in the mining industry. There was a shortage of men in the mines immediately after the war, and there was a shortage of operatives in the building trade. Why? Because the fathers would not put their sons to that trade. The same attitude that there had been in the mining industry applied in the building industry. So we found ourselves short of building operatives. What happened? Everyone knows that for the first two years after the war, or for nearly two years after the war, building operatives from every town and city in the country, even from a great city like Birmingham, which also had been blitzed, were sent to repair the damage in London.
There is no doubt about it that the house building that is going on at the present time is due to contracts that were placed before the present Government came to power. One would like to know how many of those contracts were placed before the present Government got in. Let us be frank about this. This is a serious position.
Brigadier Terence Clarke: Due to six years of Socialism.
Mr. Shurmer: Anyone who attends an advice bureau knows how serious the position is. I live in a poor district, and anyone who attends an advice bureau every Friday night, or who reads his post, knows, as I know, living as I do in a poor district, the tragedy that is going on, the agony that is being endured.
Brigadier Clarke: Because of six years of Socialism.
Mr. Shurmer: Six years of Socialism! There is not the slightest doubt about it that had the present Government been in power then there would not have been the houses to let for the workers that there are at present. At present houses are being built for sale that the workers cannot afford to pay for. However, I want to get back to my point about the question of who built the houses. Let us have a look at the situation at present. There are so many people waiting for houses—
Brigadier Clarke: Because of six years of Socialism.
Mr. Shurmer: Because of six years of full employment which gave to young people the chance to get married more quickly and, therefore, to want houses sooner; and which enabled older people to remain in their houses, whereas in pre-war days, when a man would be too old at 40 and would become unemployed and thrown on the scrap heap, older people had to give up their homes and go to live with their children, and could not have homes of their own.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I am not quite sure how the Member relates these remarks to the administration of this Department.
Mr. Shurmer: I think, Sir, with all due respect to you, that you have allowed other people to criticise the Socialist Government. Surely, I have the right to prove that the present Government could do no better, and that, anyway, the building that is going on now is due to work that was begun by the Socialist Government? I have been led astray.
Brigadier Clarke: Hear, hear.
Mr. Shurmer: We shall soon lead some of you up the garden all right.
Mr. H. A. Price: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to allude to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as being led up the garden?
Mr. Shurmer: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I meant the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and other hon. Members on the opposite side of the House.
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: The hon. Member has already been led up the garden path.
Mr. Shurmer: I should like to know—I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can give the figures, even roughly—how many of the houses that are being built with the extra number of operatives coming along month by month, exactly as is happening in the mining areas, were put out at contract before the Government come into power?
Mr. Lewis: Would my hon. Friend permit me? Is he not aware of the fact that I myself asked a question of the Minister about how many of these—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has already spoken.
Mr. Lewis: With respect. My hon. Friend has given way to allow me to put a question to him. I wish to ask him whether he is not aware that I put that Question to the Minister, asking him if he would state for how many of these new houses the previous Administration were responsible, and that the Minister refused to answer me? That speaks for itself.
Mr. Shurmer: On the controversy between what the present Government can do and what the Socialist Government were doing, we shall see that the present Government will build houses for sale but not for ordinary people to rent.
Brigadier Clarke: No.
Mr. Shurmer: We shall see.
Brigadier Clarke: We have seen already.
Mr. Shurmer: In the City of Birmingham we have at present some 65,000 applicants on the register of the housing department.
Brigadier Clarke: That shows the position after six years of Socialism.
Mr. Shurmer: After six years of full employment these people are lucky enough to be able to afford to rent a house.
Brigadier Clarke: We have got 13,000.
Mr. Edward Short: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to keep up this running commentary whilst remaining in his seat?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members would do well to remember that all remarks should be addressed to the Chair.
Mr. Shurmer: The problem in Birmingham is very, very difficult, and there is not the slightest doubt that shortly the local authority will have to go to the Minister to find some means of getting land outside the City. I should imagine that in future the only possibility will be the building of a satellite town for Birmingham. We are fast using up all the land we have, and, whilst we might be prepared to build a number of blocks of flats, I must be quite frank and say that Birmingham people are not flat-minded. Flats would be very expensive, and I
2078
imagine the only solution to the problem will be to go out of Birmingham and build a satellite town. I hope that when they are approached the Ministry will be able to make some suggestion as to how we can deal with the housing problem in the City of Birmingham.
At the present time in Birmingham—and this is a blot on the past administration in years gone by—we have 48,000 householders sharing piped water, 36,000 families sharing cooking stoves, 38,000 sharing kitchen sinks, 73,000 sharing water sanitation, 30,000 sharing fixed baths, and 116,000 houses without any bath accommodation. I doubt whether there is any hon. Member on the Government benches who has ever had to live in a house without any bathroom accommodation. I have been in public life for 31 years, and at the present time I live in a house which has no bath accommodation. If I want a bath at home I have to go to the public baths.
Mr. H. A. Price: Why live there?
Mr. Shurmer: I live in the district by choice.
Mr. Price: Why not change houses with your right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell)? [Laughter.]
Mr. Shurrner: It is all very well to laugh. You make that sacrifice. You live your life amongst the people—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to me.
Mr. Price rose—
Mr. Shurmer: No, I am not giving way. If the hon. Gentleman cares to make a joke of these things he can do so. Hon. Members opposite have never known poverty; they have never known what it is to go without these things; they cannot understand and never will understand, and it is no wonder that our people do not want the party opposite to represent them.
Mr. Price: On a point of order. Since the hon. Gentleman has referred to me, is it not customary for him to allow me to reply?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Shurmer: In Birmingham quite a number of houses have been taken over by the local authority. In fact, they have taken over the block of houses where I live, and have just been doing the first repairs to them since the first-aid repairs after the blitz. Many of these houses could last for another 10 to 15 years. Where there is a possibility of installing bathrooms in these houses, I think the Government should be prepared to consider some financial assistance to the local authorities to provide better sanitation, to make these houses more comfortable, because there is not the slightest doubt that we cannot afford to pull houses down in that city. Slums still prevail in the City of Birmingham—one of the wealthiest cities in the country—and some of them are appalling.
Mr. Nabarro: I think that I am the only other hon. Member present who lives in Birmingham and who has a knowledge of the conditions there. Most of the ills which the hon. Member has stated so religiously result from the fact that Birmingham, of all the provincial cities of this country, has grown the most rapidly in the last quarter of a century, and that is the principal cause of the difficulty.
Mr. Shurmer: For the first 25 years I was on the council. We had 32 Labour men out of 136 councillors. The question of Birmingham rapidly growing has nothing to do with the filthy back-to-back houses that exist there. I am not prepared to let the hon. Member for Kidderminster, who lives in Birmingham, tell me anything about Birmingham, because for a number of years I lived in a back-to-back house, while a councillor in the district, so that I could be among the people.
Mr. David Renton rose—
Mr. Shurmer: I think the Government will be well-advised to consider some financial assistance, so that these houses can be made more habitable for the next 10 to 15 years and have some of the conveniences, such as bathrooms. If I wanted to put a bathroom in my house, it would cost £80 or £90, which is a rather large sum. On the other hand, that house could be made habitable and convenient and blocks of houses in that district could be
2080
made so, if financial assistance was given by the Government to the local authority which is spending considerable sums of money on these areas. Birmingham City Council during the 12 months it had its first Labour majority—
Mr. Nabarro: Now, be careful.
Mr. Shurmer: —which it lost and got back again in the May elections, was prepared to set up a central area department and to sanction the spending of an enormous amount of money in reconditioning houses.
Mr. Nabarro rose—
Mr. Shurmer: Another matter to which I wish to refer was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), namely, the requisitioning of houses. How far the Socialist Government went in requisitioning houses, I am not concerned about at the moment; but I am concerned about the people walking the streets, sleeping in parks and air-raid shelters and living under awful conditions. While conditions like that exist, no houses should be allowed to be empty for more than a reasonable time, and that reasonable time should be one month. Hundreds of houses stand empty in our great towns and cities. I could find plenty of empty houses all over Birmingham.
Houses are standing empty simply because owners and landlords want to get as much for them as they can. It is a tragedy. If a war broke out tomorrow the Government would requisition everything they wanted to destroy life. It is a tragedy that these houses should be empty if allowing them to be occupied would give a chance to families, to men in the factories in Birmingham who are doing their best for the export drive to get the country on an even keel, to families which are suffering through having to live in one room, or to families which, through lack of accommodation, are split up, the man living with his people and the woman with her's and the children probably in a home. The Government have as much right to requisition such houses in peace-time as in war-time, if not more so. I hope we shall hear no more about what the Socialist Government did and that we shall find houses being built to let at rents which people can afford to pay.
8.51 p.m.
Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: One of the tragedies of the age in which we live is that housing has been brought into the arena of party politics. It is a tragedy that the miseries of ordinary human beings should be thrown about from one party to the other merely in order to secure a few votes. The fault does not rest entirely on one side of the Chamber.
Mr. Lewis: The Conservatives started it.
Squadron Leader Cooper: I do not think that the remarks of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) contribute very much to the discussion.
Mr. Lewis rose—
Squadron Leader Cooper: I will not give way. I must be guided by the behaviour of the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer), who did not seem to observe the courtesies of this House.
Mr. Shurmer: I gave way two or three times.
Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member made a most provocative speech.
Mr. Shurmer: I intended it to be provocative.
Squadron Leader Cooper: In the first few months of this Parliament hon. Gentlemen opposite were seized with the idea that they should talk very loudly about the alleged misdoings of the Conservative Party to cover up their own misdoings of the last six years. That policy succeeded for some months, but today the initiative has passed to this side of the Chamber. Hon. Gentlemen opposite now dislike intensely having brought home to them in the House and throughout the country the mess and the muddle in which they left the country.
Mr. Barnett Janner: That is an old story.
Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West says it is an old story, but it is a story which gets worse the more we dig into the history of the last six years.
The hon. Member for Sparkbrook should remember that, with approximately the same building force, between
2082
the wars we built about 350,000 houses a year—
Mr. Shurmer: What type of house?
Squadron Leader Cooper: —compared with the 200,000 houses by the Socialist Party. I deny the charge that all those houses, or anything like all of them, were jerry-built. A very large proportion of the houses built between the wars stand today as a fitting monument to the people who built them, and those who live in them are very proud owners. Today about 500,000 people in this country would be very glad to be able to live in such accommodation.
The hon. Member for Sparkbrook sets himself up as an authority on Birmingham. I am sorry to say that I do not regard him as an authority on Birmingham. In a recent debate on British Transport I made some criticism of the railway stations in Birmingham which he said was unfounded. Within 48 hours I received a letter from the Chairman of British Railways supporting what I had said.
Mr. Shurmer rose—
Squadron Leader Cooper: No, I will not give way. The hon. Member ought to go about Birmingham with his eyes open.
Mr. Thomas Steele: On a point of order. Is it according to the usual custom of this House that one hon. Gentleman should make an accusation against another and then not give him the opportunity to question it?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): That is not a point of order. There was no accusation that I heard.
Mr. Shurmer: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me to correct a statement that he has made? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. and gallant Member knows it is not true. It is a deliberate lie.
Brigadier Clarke: Is it in order for an hon. Member to talk about a definite lie?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not hear that expression.
Squadron Leader Cooper: I question the Parliamentary language of the hon. Member, but I am quite prepared,

2083
though not at this precise moment, to show him in HANSARD the statement to which I refer, to show him his own speech and also the letter from Lord Hurcomb.
Mr. Shurmer: Queen's Hotel?
Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Member is quite right. He remembers it now.
Mr. Shurmer: I do not live in hotels.
Squadron Leader Cooper: To deal with the criticism I made about the Queen's Hotel the hon. Member did not have to go inside, because I was criticising the outside.
Mr. Shurmer: Be fair and give way on that point.
Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Member wants some help regarding further land in Birmingham because Birmingham, he says, is a congested area. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to pay some attention to the legislation which passes through this House. In this Chamber we have recently approved the Town Development Bill, and if he takes some notice of that he will find that Birmingham has all the powers which it needs to do what is necessary—
Mr. Shurmer: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves that I should be obliged if he would give way. I am grateful to him for giving way. He must be fair in his statements. He talks about something he said of Birmingham. He wanted a glass canopy put outside the Queen's Hotel, and he said that the Queen's Hotel looked a disgrace because it had not a glass canopy on the outside.
Squadron Leader Cooper: I am very glad I gave way because it will be within the knowledge of the House that when I made certain observations a few moments ago the hon. Member denied that I knew anything about it. He said what I said was a deliberate lie. I take it that now he withdraws that. I want to make one final reference—
Mr. Shurmer: What has a canopy to do with housing?
Squadron Leader Cooper: —to the background of hon. Members on this side of the House.
Mr. Shurmer: There were more labourers on the Queen's Hotel who ought to have been building houses.
Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Member referred, in his speech, to the social background of hon. Members on this side of the House, and made particular reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price). He would not give way to my hon. Friend, and I am going to tell him this: my hon. Friend lived for 20 years as one of five children with his father and mother in two rooms in Islington without any bathroom whatsoever. His father was a builder's labourer, and that is one example, and there are very many others, of hon. Members on this side of the House with similar backgrounds. [Interruption.] I should have thought —[Interruption]—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I can scarcely hear what is being said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The less noise there is the better.
Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) ought to apologise.
Squadron Leader Cooper: I think the hon. Member for Sparkbrook—
Mr. Nabarro: It is disgraceful.
Squadron Leader Cooper: —ought to have sufficient courtesy to withdraw.
Mr. Shurmer: I think it will be within the recollection of hon. Members who heard me that I was attacking hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and that I attacked the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price) because of his laughing. I did not say anything about the conditions under which he lived. I said that I did not suppose the majority of hon. Members, or possibly any hon. Member, on that side of the House knew what it was to go without the convenience of a bathroom. I did not refer to any particular Member.
Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Member can shuffle and wriggle as much as he likes. When he reads HANSARD tomorrow he will find out precisely what he said. I have no doubt whatsoever that, in the end, he will send a note of apology to my hon. Friend.

2085
I want to spend a moment or two upon the more constructive efforts which have been made by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). He has had long experience in local government and on various housing committees, and we have noticed the considerable effort that he has made to help.
I cannot appreciate his remarks about requisitioning. Surely he must know that local authorities, whatever their political complexion, are very vexed about this matter, and are anxious to get rid of requisitioned property rather than to take on further property. Every hon. Member receives a great deal of correspondence from owners of requisitioned property who want to get control of their properties, not to sell them—although I admit there are a few in that category—but to live in the houses themselves.
I have a number of cases where because of housing shortage, the tenants have to remain in the requisitioned property, the council cannot put them elsewhere, and the owners of the property are living in appalling conditions.
Mr. Sparks: In cases like that local authorities have power to release requisitioned property. I cannot conceive of a local authority, being asked by an owner to release his requisitioned property because he was homeless, refusing to do so. Release has been carried out extensively in cases like that. Where the owner wants to gain possession in order to sell the house, he himself being properly housed, would he a case for the local authority's refusing to release.
Squadron Leader Cooper: The owner of the property need not necessarily be homeless, but he may be living in very bad conditions. He may have a roof over his head, but be living in one or two rooms a long way from his work. Civil servants who were evacuated during the war to other parts of the country, and whose homes were temporarily requisitioned by the authorities, are now being brought back to London, and they want to get into their properties. Such cases are very sad and there is quite a number of them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Very few."] There is a great number of them.
Mr. Lewis: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) referred
2086
to houses that were empty, and that the whole point of his case was the vast number of properties in London that were empty for weeks and months on end and should be requisitioned?
Squadron Leader Cooper: At this moment, I am not concerned with them. I do not know the details of the list which the hon. Gentleman has in front of him. It is fair to point out that it was the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) who curtailed the requisitioning powers of the local authorities. It was not my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Housing and Local Government. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland recognised then that requisitioning had to stop, that it was proper in due time for the properties to go back to their proper owners.
It is all very well for some hon. Gentlemen opposite to talk about requisitioning more properties. When they are in their own homes, as so many are, buying them under mortgage or in some other way, it is not generous to talk about disposing of the property of other people in this way. We would all much prefer to see people who have bought a home being able to get into it. Surely it is wrong, and contrary to British justice, that so many people who own their homes are not permitted to live in them because of the requisitioning powers?
Mr. Shurmer: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that people should be walking the streets or living in one room in overcrowded conditions while hundreds of houses are standing empty? Those are the ones we are trying to get at. Why does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman put it properly?
Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Gentleman states a case which is very sad. We all realise that housing our people is No. 1 priority. I would point out to the hon. Member, who insists on bringing this back to party politics instead of discussing it on a national basis, that it was the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) who, in the first Socialist Government of 1945, said time and time again that before the next Election the housing problem of this country would be ended. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes, over and over again, and he would not in any circumstances

2087
authorise a programme in excess of 200,000 houses a year. We have said that we do not regard 200,000 houses as our ceiling; we will go up to 300,000 and beyond.
Mr. Shurmer: What about hospitals and schools?
Squadron Leader Cooper: My right hon. Friend is already able to show a considerable advance. The hon. Member asks, "What about hospitals and schools?" That is a pertinent observation because a lot of illness which we get at present, a lot of juvenile delinquency, and so forth, is brought about through bad housing. If I am asked to quote a priority for men and materials, I would opt for building houses first. Is there any other hon. Gentleman who would do anything different? The hon. Member for Sparkbrook knows that is right and so does his hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North. What is the point in continuing to interrupt with such frivolous observations?
Mr. Shurmer rose—
Squadron Leader Cooper: No, I will not give way any more; I have been very generous.
Now I want to ask a serious question about the borough of Battersea. I tried to get into touch with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) tonight when I knew that this debate was on, but I was not successful. I understand that in the borough of Battersea the district auditor has made serious observations in connection with the direct labour of that borough. Battersea is a Socialist controlled borough and it has a direct labour department. It built a large number of houses, the costs and rents of which are very high indeed.
I understand that the report of the district auditor has been submitted to my right hon. Friend, and the House is entitled to know what is being done in this case. It seems to me wrong that any local authority, whatever its political complexion, should force a doctrine down the throats of the ratepayers which has resulted, as in this case, in excessive costs of houses at uneconomic rents and in a very heavy rate subsidy falling upon the rest of the ratepayers.
2088
I am very glad that we have had this opportunity tonight of ventilating the serious problem of housing. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West in saying that I marvel at the temerity of hon. Members opposite in raising this subject tonight. [An HON. MEMBER: "And their dishonesty."] In the years 1945 to 1950, as a result of bad housing conditions, we had the spiv, the racketeer and the black marketeer. That is the price that the country had to pay for six years of Socialist policy in housing, and I hope that the people will never forget it.
9.11 p.m.
Mr. Barnett Janner: Of all the non-party political speeches I have heard, the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) takes some beating. He started by telling us that he was disgusted with the party political speeches and that this was a matter outside party politics. Then he proceeded to give a speech so peppered with party political prejudices that it is almost impossible to know where the purport of the speech came in at all apart from its political attack.
The hon. and gallant Member knows very well that it was estimated by the great thinkers in his own party that when we had 450,000 houses built the problem would be solved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Seven hundred and fifty thousand."] All right. Let us have the figures correctly. Does the hon. and gallant Member still say that? Does he still say that the people, having had six years of good Socialist rule, with good social amenities and with a proper understanding of how to live, now that they require proper houses to live in in order to carry out those methods that have been prepared for them by the Socialist Government, would be contented—the newly marrieds and all the rest—with 750,000 and that that will solve the problem? Of course, the hon. and gallant Member does not think it for one moment. Then he talked about requisitioning
Let me talk about one or two points that I want to raise specially in this debate. For many years, in many Governments, we have endeavoured to protect those who were in houses which were below a certain rateable value from being ejected. Until the present Government came into office efforts were made

2089
to make and keep the Rent Acts effective. It was the purpose of those Acts to protect people from being profited against by racketeers taking over premises and using them for the purpose of extorting unreasonable rentals. Attempts were made to bring landlords into line, so that they would repair the houses and keep them in repair, and the tenants were called upon to pay the costs of those repairs.
Fifteen per cent, was allowed to the landlords, when the first Rent Act came into enable them to have some reasonable return above the rental that they were receiving before. Ever since the 1915 Rent Act came into force, however, all houses, until the time of the 1939 Rent Act, were being let at a rental in which the landlord was entitled to charge, and in the main did charge, 25 per cent. of the net rent for the purpose of keeping those houses in repair. What has been done with that money? What are the Government going to do about compelling those who have received these rentals year in and year out for so many years to utilise that money for the purpose for which it was given or extracted from the tenant?
Today we hear a lot of talk about increasing the rents in consequence of repairs. All too often it is forgotten that landlords have used those moneys without fulfilling the obligation placed upon them by those Acts in the direction of effecting the repairs. I give that as an introduction for the reason that instead of strengthening these Acts and doing all that is essential to make them effective, this Government are today doing everything to wreck those Acts.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): That is a rather serious allegation. I hope the hon. Member will say in what way my right hon. Friend is wrecking an actual statute on the Statute Book.
Mr. Janner: Of course; I would not have said it unless I was prepared to justify it. What is the position today with regard to the duties of local authorities? A local authority under the Rent Acts is supposed to give information, and to be encouraged to give information, to the people in the district as to what their rights are and what they are entitled to do. It is false economy and wrong
2090
economy on the part of the Government to stop, or not to encourage, local authorities doing what is their obvious duty under the Acts. But what do we find? Question after Question is put in this House about landlords extracting rents to which they are not entitled under the Acts. They are forcing tenants to contribute to what they consider to be a proper additional rental. But the Acts say they are not entitled to ask for that.
When the Minister is questioned on the point he does not say, "I am going to tell the local authorities to use their powers in order to let the people know that this kind of thing is illegal and improper." All the answer that is given is, "Well there is a legal possibility of those people exercising a right to prevent that kind of thing, but good luck to them." That is practically what it amounts to and the Minister cannot deny it because, if he looks up HANSARD, he will see it amounts to that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps I ought to put it on a lower level—"We do not mind if they get it."
But what is the difference between "We do not mind" and "Good luck to them" in that context we do not know. It has become a public scandal and has been raised in this House time after time. Tenants in large blocks of buildings are receiving notices day after day telling them that sums which cannot be recovered under the Acts are going to be charged. The Government stand aside and say, "Do not bother about that. That does not matter." What is the result—
Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: Is the hon. Member going to give the House an example of one of these cases of large blocks of buildings?
Mr. Janner: Good heavens, yes. I have one here. I do not want to weary the House by reading the letters, but this, for example, is the kind of gentlemanly letter sent to a big block:
"We have been instructed by the landlords…"
I do not want to give publicity to the landlords—
"to write you on the subject of increasing costs of maintaining the landlord's services of this building. We think you will agree that they have succeeded in maintaining these services on a high level …We feel sure you will appreciate the difficulties. We suggest in your

2091
case a contribution of £40 per annum might be made towards these. We ask you to appreciate that your present rent is considerably below the present day value of your flat."
That is only one of many cases. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is doubtful and will come along a little later I will give him details of dozens of cases which will satisfy him that this is prevalent throughout the country.
Sir G. Hutchinson: Will the hon. Member bring me a case where the tenant is told that he is under a legal obligation to pay? That is what the hon. Member says.
Mr. Janner: That is precisely my point about the attitude of the Government. Of course the landlords do not tell the tenants that they are under a legal obligation, and the Government say "Good luck to you for not saying it. Get whatever you can, even if it is robbery with violence." That will not do: it is what I am complaining about.
Mr. Marples: When did the Government say what the hon. Gentleman is saying with so much indignation? When did my right hon. Friend say that?
Mr. Janner: It must be within the knowledge of Members; I do not know that the hon. Member did not say so himself on this question of the legal right of the tenant. Of course he did not say "Good luck to them," but he meant it. If he did not mean it, let me ask the Parliamentary Secretary honestly and in all seriousness why he did not circulate the whole of the local authorities in this Country and tell them to publicise the fact that these things were illegal? He is supposed to do it under the Act. Why did he not do it? I wonder if he will answer that when he replies? If he was in earnest about protecting the tenants, why did he not do it?
Mr. Harmar Nicholls: I understood the hon. Member to say that the Minister had discouraged the local authorities from applying the Rent Acts. Having made a statement of so sweeping a character as that, the hon. Member ought to give us an actual example of where the Minister had discouraged the town clerk of the local authority from doing so.
Mr. Janner: That will not do when there is an act of omission in these matters in respect of which an Act of Parliament says it is the duty of the local authority to keep the people informed. If the Minister does not perform an act of commission by telling the local authorities they are not doing their job in that direction, then he is encouraging them not to do their job. That is my view. I may be entirely wrong, but I think that any reasonable person would think the same as I do.
Let me ask my next question. Since when has it been an act of encouragement in relation to the exercise of rights under Acts for the protection of tenants to close down the only places in the country where tenants can get proper advice and reasonable direction? The rent tribunals are part and parcel of the fabric of our Rent Acts. They were guides of tenants and inquirers in every district. They knew their job; they were specialists in it, and if a tenant wanted to know anything about his position he could go to the local office of the rent tribunal in order to obtain the necessary information.
What is happening today? How are the Government showing their genuine regard for the interests of the tenants? They are closing them down. Out of 11 in Lancashire and Cheshire eight have been closed. That is not true economy, it is economy on the backs of the people for whom a series of Acts were passed in order to enable them to know what their rights are and to exercise those rights. We are told that in Cheshire there is to be no rent tribunal at all. Some have to go 20 or 30 miles—
Mr. J. R. Bevins: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me? I think this is a most lamentable example of abysmal ignorance. The hon. Member has surely heard the statements made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government in this Chamber, and he has probably also heard the conversations his hon. Friend has had with the Minister in which it has been made perfectly clear that the rent tribunal based on Liverpool will be an Assize tribunal which will visit complainants on the other side of the River Mersey: and that they will be in exactly the same position and get the same service in the future as they had in the past?
Mr. Janner: Before the hon. Gentleman talks about abysmal ignorance he had better study the conditions in his own city, and in Chester, which is near to him, because he knows nothing at all about it. I will read to him what the Chester people say themselves and then perhaps he will understand the position better. They say, this is from Chester—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who says?"]—this is from the actual tribunal. Right from the horse's mouth—not from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Bevins), who believes he knows what he is talking about, but does not. This is the position:
"A quarterly return has been issued showing the work of rent tribunals for the whole country and I quote extracts of the details which apply to the north-west region"—
That is the region in which you are living and perhaps you will be interested to hear what has happened—
Mr. Speaker: I am not living in that region.
Mr. Janner: I am sorry, Sir, I meant the hon. Member for Toxteth. I anticipated there might be some objection on your part, although, with great respect, I do not think you would object to living in the district which the hon. Member represents. This is what is quoted:
"You will see that as regards the number of cases Chester is listed as number 5. But it is a fact that under the Landlord and Tenant Rent Control Act, 1949 we top the list"—
"We" meaning the people who know, who are there; not people who are abysmally ignorant about the facts, but people who know all about it. They say that in Chester, under the 1946 Act there were 444 cases; under the 1949 Act there were 253 cases, a total of 697. That was the latest information they obtained. And it is proposed to send round a tribunal on Assize, on circuit. Does the hon. Member know what on earth he is talking about? What are they going to do—advertise that they will be in Chester Square on a certain day and that all the citizens may come and inquire of them what is going to happen? Are they going to send out the local town crier to tell the citizens and ask them to come together in a merry mood so that they may have their problems settled?
This is not the case of a Member of Parliament going round to his constituents. We are talking about a rent tribunal with
2094
an office, a place to which any individual had occasion to come in order to get his problems solved. The fact of the matter is that in those counties there were 11 tribunals, and the number is being reduced to three. Some people will have to come 20 or 30 miles in order to have their problems solved, to know whether their rent is to be altered by 3s. or 4s. and whether they can be protected or not. They may have to come 20 or 30 miles in order to make that inquiry. Or perhaps they can ask their neighbours. Perhaps they will send a letter to their Member of Parliament. I think that perhaps the hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) would know the answer, but I doubt very much whether the people in Toxteth would get the right answer.
I say that this is another attempt to wreck the Acts, because it is not going to stop there. It may be of interest to the hon. Member for Toxteth to know that this is the thin end of the wedge, and that this kind of thing is being done in other parts of the country. In other words, the means by which the Rent Acts live is to be taken away from them. The Rent Acts can die so far as the tenants are concerned, because the tenants themselves will have no recourse to any authority.
Mr. Ellis Smith: I have friends who have served on these tribunals, and I give them full credit for the great work that they have done. But has there not recently been a high court decision affecting the competence of these tribunals?
Mr. Janner: My hon. Friend has anticipated my third point. I want to know what is to be done by the Government about this recent decision. I know that it would not be in order in this debate to suggest any change in legislation. I am not touching upon that. But strange things have happened. For many years it was felt that the rent tribunals were not in a position to prevent people from being turned out of furnished rooms if they took their complaints to the tribunals. The country was agitated about this and we passed an Act in 1949 to deal with the matter. We decided in our wisdom that we should give tenants protection under Section 11 of that Act whereby the tribunals would have the right to increase the three months and so on. Parliaments propose, sometimes the courts dis-

2095
pose. The result is that it has now been held by court in the case of Rex v. the St. Helens Rent Tribunal ex parte Pickavance, that a landlord, as long as he does not give the tenant notice to quit until after the first three months have expired, is able to turn out the applicant for relief.
This case went to appeal, but it is no no longer sub judice. As I understand it there was some suggestion that an appeal should be made to a higher court, but I gather that the appeal is not being proceeded with, otherwise I should not have referred to the matter.
So what does the landlord do now? He serves a notice the day after the three months have expired. The result is that the tenant who had the temerity to take the case to the tribunal, probably with full justification, is now thrown out of his home. I asked Questions about this some time ago. Of course I cannot ask the same question tonight, because I cannot ask about new legislation: but what about administration?
What does the Parliamentary Secretary propose to do to requisition these houses? Is he prepared in a case of that sort to requisition the rooms under the powers which he has already so that a tenant will not be ejected and so that this unfortunate position which has arisen owing to the court's decision may not affect those who thought that they were protected and who now find that they are not? This is one of the uses to which he could put requisitioning.
I take the matter one step further. The hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South in his non-political speech, was upset about the fact that possibly empty houses may be requisitioned. I wonder if he has ever sat in a county court and listened to those cases where questions of greater hardship have to be decided by the learned judge and he has come to the conclusion that he must weigh in favour of one side or the other although he feels that the hardship is very serious on the other side as well.
Why should not accommodation be requisitioned for those who suffer that hardship? The Minister has to come to a decision. When these people go to the local authorities, what happens? Is it not a fact that often people who have occupied
2096
houses with their families for a considerable time have to go into rest rooms and other unsuitable places and that sometimes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) said, they cannot find homes at all? Why not requisition?
Squadron Leader Cooper: I can see the point which the hon. Gentleman makes, but surely he must admit that the owner of a property, who himself may be living in very unhappy circumstances, is entitled to some consideration so that he can get his property back.
Mr. Janner: Of course, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not see the point. There are certain houses which are empty when the owners do not want to live in them but are keeping them for sale. The result is that those houses remain empty for long periods at a time when there is a big demand for accommodation. Why should not notice be served on such owners—it was done before—stating that if they have not disposed of the house by a certain time it will be requisitioned? With the need for accommodation which exists at present it is very important that there should be wide and extensive requisitioning, not against people who need their homes for their own accommodation, but against many people who are simply waiting for the highest price which they can get in this period of shortage.
May I turn to another racketeering scandal? We were told by the Minister the other day that he was taking some action about these agents—not genuine agents but racketeering persons—who advertise that they can help people to find accommodation. Men and women are going to them in desperation, putting down as much as £5, and entering into contracts for another £20, for services rendered.
Sir G. Hutchinson: Has not the hon. Gentleman observed on the Order Paper a notice of Motion for next week by which I am seeking leave to introduce a Bill to deal with the matter?
Mr. Janner: Of course I have, but that is a matter for legislation and I must do my best to observe the rules of order. While I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his assistance, and while I hope he will be successful, nevertheless

2097
—I must in this debate keep within what the Minister can do without Legislation—in my view he can deal with these matters without legislation. It is a scandal and it is clear misrepresentation on the part of those so-called agents, for they do nothing at all for the £20 or £25 which they demand. The Minister should institute inquiries in order to root them out, lock, stock and barrel. They have no right to batten on the needs of the people and to demand these sums for doing practically nothing at all—because all they do, if anything, is to give a letter of introduction to some house agent or other and say, "See this agent"—as if the applicant could not go to see him without a letter of introduction.
I want to deal with another matter before I close, and here again I should like the attention of the non-political hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South. He is trying to get away with a political argument which the people of this country will never accept. It is quite true that priority must be given to housing, and the Labour Government gave priority to it, but we cannot take a lot of people from one district, plant them on a housing estate and leave them there without the facilities which are vital to their lives and the lives of their children. In the first place, we must remember that families with at least two youngsters, babies or children in their early years, are put into these houses. We cannot leave them without schools. The hon. and gallant Gentleman should go to the New Parks estate in my constituency and make his suggestion there. If he did he would never survive. He would find himself metaphorically torn limb from limb.
Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Gentleman overlooks one very important factor, and that is that today, as compared with before the war, there are about the same number of building operatives in the industry—about the same number; and yet the late Labour Government's own Girdwood Committee reported that productivity in this industry was some 23 per cent. to 27 per cent. below what it was pre-war. That cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand. It is a fact.
Mr. Janner: Wait a minute. I do not intend to allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to start leading me up the garden path. What I am saying is a very simple fact, and that is that where there
2098
are housing estates, as, for example, in the case of the New Parks estate in Leicester, where there are some 2,000 to 3,000 new houses, we have got to provide them with schools and have got to provide the people there with other essential amenities. It is a scandalous thing that on that very estate that I am speaking about there is not proper accommodation for our children for schooling. They are taken away to other schools—away from their parents; and they have to travel considerable distances; and some youngsters are separated from their brothers and sisters in consequence of the fact that proper provision has not been made for them on the estate.
The Labour Government, immediately after the war, at the most difficult time of all, when the Prime Minister of today said that this country was bankrupt and could not possibly live more than a few months—at least, that is how one would interpret what he said—in the way we wanted to, pulled the country through. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes, they did—and they built houses, and they built decent houses—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] —houses fit for people to live in; not houses with lowered ceilings and no w.c.; or only one w.c.; not with skimping and scraping. They built houses in which the housewives were perfectly contented and which were good and easy to run.
Someone spoke tonight about Birmingham. Let hon. Members come to Leicester and see the slum houses there. Let them see the kind of houses built in Tory times—houses in which one can push one's feet through the ceiling, houses for which 25 per cent. is charged as additional rent for repairs; houses condemned; houses unable to stand up to the ordinary stresses and strains of family occupation. And then let them understand why we are in this terrible housing position.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is an active, live man. I hope he will take notice of the points I have made. I hope he will help us get out of these difficulties. I hope he will play his part in seeing that the Rent Acts operate as they should, and in seeing that people are not denied knowledge of what their rights are—are not deprived of the means of obtaining that knowledge. If he will give them a chance they will thank him. If he proceeds on the lines the Government

2099
are at present proceeding on in the matters to which I have referred he will find himself in a very deep hole indeed.
9.43 p.m.
Sir Jocelyn Lucas: I shall not try to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), but I want very briefly to point to a grave situation which has arisen in Portsmouth and also, I believe, in other bombed cities.
There are a number of houses left standing in bombed-damaged streets. Some of the damaged houses have had to be pulled down because they became derelict, thus leaving the party walls of houses, which are inhabited, exposed. These walls have been shored up by the local authority ex gratia. Tarpaulins have been lent, also ex gratia, to keep the rain out. These temporary repairs are ex gratia, but the council deny all liability for the further repairs necessary. The War Damage Commission, in turn, also denies all liability because it says it is the council that pulled down the derelict buildings. I have tried various Government Departments, but I can get no answer at all as to whose responsibility this is.
I am not making a complaint against any party in particular. These problems have been inherited, but we have not solved them any more than the last Government did, and they must be solved without delay. If these houses are not repaired but are left as they are, they will soon become uninhabitable and we shall merely have a more acute housing shortage than before. In the majority of cases the present owners or occupiers are themselves quite unable to pay, even if they get the necessary licences, and I beg the Minister to do something to make somebody responsible for seeing that these repairs are carried out and these houses properly patched up and made habitable. I shall be very grateful if my hon. Friend can give me a satisfactory answer which I could send to my people.
9.46 p.m.
Mr. Edward Short: A great deal has been said in this debate about the Tory Government's housing record and about the record of the Labour Government. While I think that is a fruitless argument
2100
at this early stage in the Government's career, there are one or two things which should be put on record in relation to this argument. The first is that practically all the houses completed since the Tory Government took office were started when the Labour Government were in office. That is the first thing to be remembered. The second is that the quicker rate of completion has been achieved by cutting out a vast range of other building. The Minister of Education admitted when I raised the matter that there has been a cut of £40 million in the school building programme.
Mr. Nicholls: The number of houses completed in the first three months of this year was 10,000 more than the number completed in the equivalent three months of last year. One can see the point of the suggestion that they were started by the previous Government, but how does the hon. Gentleman answer the point that 15,000 more houses were started in the first three months of this year than in the first three months of last year?
Mr. Short: The answer is the same. The Minister of Education, in reply to a query I put to her, admitted that there, had been a cut of £40 million in the school building programme, and in many large local education authority areas there is not one new school being built at present. In addition, a vast amount of factory building has been cut out since the present Government took office.
It has been argued that housing should be given an absolute priority. I agree that it ought to have a high degree of priority, but there is something more important than houses, and that is jobs. Those of us who live in areas which before the war were dependent on one or two major industries realise the importance of the dispersal of industry and the allocation of new factories in the old distressed areas. The Government have been able to complete and to start more houses because they are not building schools or factories, and that should be noted.
The second thing to note is the difference between conditions when the Labour Government came into office and when the Tory Government came in. It is often overlooked that in 1945, when the

2101
Labour Party took office, the war was still on; the war in the East had not been won, so that they did not start from scratch. That was starting a lot further back than from scratch, because almost all the labour force was in the Armed Forces. When the Tory Government came in in October of last year there was a large efficient building force of approximately a million men, about half of them engaged on housebuilding.
Colonel J. H. Harrison: Did the late Sir Stafford Cripps and Mr. Ernest Bevin remember that when, in the 1945 Labour Party Election programme, they said that four or five million houses could be built in very quick time?
Mr. Short: I am coming on to promises. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who has already been referred to, said on a number of occasions that the back of the problem would be broken by the end of the 1945 Parliament. All hon. Members opposite are adept at taking things out of their context. They do not tell us in what context that was said. My right lion. Friend was referring to the estimate made by Lord Woolton when he was Minister of Re-construction during the war. If the hon. Member who laughed turns up the speech in which that was said, he will see that the right hon. Member was referring to Lord Woolton's estimate that 750,000 houses would be sufficient.
Colonel Harrison: Will the hon. Member not agree that on one occasion the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said:
"I give you this promise, that by the next Election there will be no housing problem for the British working-class."?
Could that be interpreted in more than one way?
Mr. Short: Of course it could. During the war, Lord Woolton was given the task of laying down plans for reconstruction at the end of the war. The estimate of Lord Woolton and his expert staff was that 750.000 houses would satisfy the post-war housing needs. It was in reference to that, that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that the back of the problem would be broken and there would not be any considerable housing difficulty.
2102
I want to pass from general remarks to the housing problem in my own city. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is here because I raised this matter in the first few days of this Session. We have a waiting list at the present time in Newcastle-upon-Tyne of over 16,000, and it is increasing at the rate of about 1,000 a year. This bad housing is concentrated largely along the old area of the river. This area in the division which I represent is a cesspool of tuberculosis. The figure for tuberculosis is more than twice the national level in spite of all improvements, and that, I believe, is largely due to the appalling housing conditions.
I held an ordinary M.P.'s "surgery" on Saturday morning, and I had a stream of people to see me about their housing conditions. There were people living eight, nine and 10 in two rooms who could not get houses. We have had in Newcastle a Tory council since 1949, and since then we have only had a trickle of houses. In the last year of the Labour council, we built very nearly 2,000. I have asked the Minister to look into the problem of increasing the number of houses and I ask him to do so again.
I want to mention one or two other factors. The first is the question of land. Newcastle is a very ancient city and is largely built up. There is land available for this year and may be for next year, but there is no land left for any period after 1953. We are experiencing difficulty of getting land from Northumberland. I would implore the Minister to look into the controversy between the city of Newcastle and the county of Northumberland to see if he can do anything to facilitate the acquisition of land. I see him smiling, but that is the crux of our problem, and I ask him to look into the matter.
Secondly, there is the shortage of material. I have taken up the question of cement with the Minister of Works on a number of occasions during the past winter. Almost all our cement comes from the Thames-side factories and a small amount from I.C.I. at Billing-ham, but there is a great shortage of cement. That shortage is not confined to one or two unsatisfactory contractors; as the Minister of Works indicated. It is fairly widespread throughout the northeastern area. I should like the Minister to do something about it.
Mr. Ellis Smith: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has said, because Sunderland and the north-eastern area had one of the best records in the country. Surely there must be something in the local drive.
Mr. Short: That is so when we have a Socialist council which believes in building houses to let. It is not only a question of cement. Quite small things hold up housing. A contractor told me a few weeks ago that he was held up for want of nails. I should be glad if the Minister could do something about that.
We have a number of contractors in Newcastle whom I believe to be unsatisfactory. I asked the Minister to look into this previously, but the position is still unsatisfactory. I am a member of the city council and I see the progress reports of the various contractors, and we still have contractors who, I believe, are not pulling their weight. If the Minister could do anything about this we should be very grateful.
We have heard much about empty houses. If an owner has a bona fide intention of moving into his own house surely he should have a reasonable opportunity to do so. I see hundreds of empty houses in Newcastle. In my own area I see houses which have been empty for from three to six months simply because the owners wish to sell them and are holding out for the highest prices. The question of requisitioning should be re-examined, but the position of owners who really intend to occupy their own houses should be safeguarded.
The Tory council in Newcastle has worked out a gigantic flats development scheme. There is widespread opposition to this, because the rents will be much too high for the wages paid on Tyne-side. It is estimated that the rents will go up to about £2 10s. a week, which is absolutely out of the question for Newcastle. The greater part of the energies of the housing committee and the architects department are directed towards this scheme, and I regard it as housing a class bias, because such accommodation can only be occupied by people with very high incomes. Perhaps the Minister will investigate that as well.
As to licences, we still have the ratio of one in five. The Minister and one
2104
of his regional officers have been suggesting that many local authorities in the North should give more licences to private builders. With the present ratio of one in five in Newcastle it is considerably easier to get a building licence than to get a council house. It would be shocking in an area such as that, with a shortage of land, labour and material, that so much should be devoted to houses which will be allocated on the criterion of wealth and not that of need.
A person getting a building licence must have 10 per cent. of the amount required, which, at a very low estimate, will probably be £160, plus legal charges of perhaps another £40. That means that the licences are restricted to people who have a capital of £200 to begin with and who can meet the charges of £3 10s. a week for the next 20 years.
I would ask the Minister to stop pressing local authorities to increase their ration of houses to licence. It is extremely difficult to get cement, land and all the things we need for our ordinary building programme.
It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

INTESTATES' ESTATES BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(RIGHTS OF SURVIVING SPOUSE AS RESPECTS A BUSINESS.)
The Schedule (Rights of surviving spouse as respects a business owned solely or in partnership by the intestate) to this Act shall have effect for enabling the surviving husband or wife of a person dying intestate after the commencement of this Act to acquire a business owned solely or in partnership by the said person.—[Mr. Fanner.]
Brought up, and read the First and Second time and added to the Bill.

New Schedule.—(RIGHTS OF SURVIVING SPOUSE AS RESPECTS A BUSINESS OWNED SOLELY OR IN PARTNERSHIP BY THE INTESTATE.)
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule where the residuary estate of the intestate includes a business, or businesses of which the intestate was the sole owner or in which the intestate was a partner with the surviving husband or wife the surviving husband or wife may require the personal

2105
representative in exercise of the power conferred by section forty-one of the principal Act (and with due regard to the requirements of that section as to valuation) to appropriate the said interest in a business or businesses in or towards satisfaction of the interest of the surviving husband or wife in the residuary estate.
(2) The surviving husband or wife shall not be entitled to require the personal representative to distribute to him or her any part of the residuary estate, other than personal chattels, until he or she has notified the personal representative that he or she intends, or does not intend, to exercise the power conferred by this paragraph.
(3) Nothing in subsection (5) of section forty-one of the principal Act (which requires the personal representative, in making an appropriation to any person under that section, to have regard to the rights of others) shall prevent the personal representative from giving effect to a requirement under this paragraph.
(4) Where, under the second proviso to subsection (1) of the said section forty-one (which relates to persons under disability) consent to an appropriation in favour of the surviving husband or wife would have to be given by another person, any notification under this paragraph shall also be given by that other person.
(5) The reference in this paragraph to the interest of the surviving husband or wife in the residuary estate does not include a reference to a share in the residuary estate in which the husband or wife has a life interest; and the reference in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph to a distribution of a part of the residuary estate does not include a reference to a payment in respect of a life interest.
2. The said interest in the business or businesses shall not be sold, except where required for the purposes of administration owing to want of other assets, unless the surviving husband or wife has notified the personal representative that he or she does not intend to exercise the power conferred by this Schedule.
3.—(1) Where the surviving husband or wife is the sole personal representative, or one of several personal representatives, the rule that a trustee may not be a purchaser of trust property shall not prevent the surviving husband or wife from purchasing out of the estate of the intestate an interest in such business or businesses.
(2) The power of appropriation under the said section forty-one of the principal Act shall include power to appropriate an interest in such business or businesses partly in satisfaction of an interest of the surviving husband or wife in the residuary estate and partly in return for a payment of money by the surviving husband or wife to the personal representative.
(3) References in this Schedule to a business shall include all trade marks and letters patent and all goods manufactured and unmanufactured and all stock-in-trade machinery plant and effects belonging to the estate in connection with or used for the purpose of the said business and the benefit of all contracts subsisting in relation thereto at the death
2106
of the intestate and also all book debts which shall then be owing to the intestate in connection with the said business and any securities for money cash or money at the bank to the credit of the said business accounts and shall be liable to the taking over and discharging by the purchaser of all liabilities of the intestate in connection with the said business existing at the intestate's death against which the surviving spouse exercising the aforesaid option to purchase shall indemnify the intestate's estate.—[Mr. Fanner.]
Brought up, and read the First and Second time and added to the Bill.

HOUSING
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]
Mr. Short: As I was saying, the only allocation is one in five, but it means that those houses are much easier to get than are council houses. They are being allocated on the criterion of wealth and not on the criterion of need. This may cause some amusement on the Government Front Bench, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the question of rehousing the people I represent is no joke. I question the selling of houses we have not yet built in Newcastle. We have a pool of 17,000 houses to let, but if there is any proposal by the Tory council to sell council houses, the Tory council will be swept out of office, so will the remaining Tory M.P. who has visited the City three times since his Election. That is beside the point.
These are some of the points about housing in Newcastle which I raised before with the Minister. I would ask him to look into them and while he will not be able to deal with them now I ask him to look into them and if he can to do anything at all to help us in our efforts to rehouse the people, it will assist.
10.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Marples): We have had a long debate, and one of the charms of our debates is the unexpected which frequently happens. I was having my dinner before coming to the Chamber, and I received a call from here which was unexpected and not as welcome as it might have been. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Irving) has been most

2107
patient and has sat throughout the entire debate. I ought, I think, to do him the credit of dealing fully with the points he raised, because, after all, it is his Adjournment debate. He has been very courteous and he never interrupted once. I should like to deal with the points that he raised about temporary houses in Tottenham.
Quite frankly, they were a legacy from the Coalition Government, which started them. I do not want to introduce any controversial note by saying that it is a bad legacy, but it is a difficult one. The life of the temporary houses was limited to 10 years, and an excessive amount will have to be spent on repairs as they get older. A lot of them are sited in London, particularly on commons and open spaces. They are going to be a bit of a difficulty to my right hon. Friend or to his successors in future years. They were provided under the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act of 1944, and the terms and conditions were laid down quite clearly at the time in a memorandum.
In paragraph 8 of that Memorandum the hon. Member will see that the conditions were: first, the site was to be provided by the local authority; secondly, the local authority constructed the necessary roads, sewers and services; thirdly, the Ministry of Works provided the foundations, erected the house and did the works necessary within the curtilage of the site. The local authority was required to inform the Ministry of Works of the nature of the soil and whether any special proportions were necessary for providing the foundations. The fourth point was that the local authorities were responsible for the repair and maintenance of the house.
Under the Act of 1944—this is the crucial point which will interest the hon. Gentleman—Section 2 provides that the Minister may arrange with the Minister of Works to remove a temporary house on giving due notice of his intention to the local authority. If my right hon. Friend decided to remove any temporary house by arrangement with the Minister of Works he could do so. The hon. Member will find in Appendix 4 of the Memorandum that the period of such notice is given as not less than three months. It is within the Minister's dis-
2108
cretion to decide whether in a particular case the circumstances are such that it is desirable to remove the structure. That is the general position regarding temporary houses.
I now come to the particular houses which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. He mentioned the Forster Road bungalow. Here it seems that the temporary prefabricated house is being flooded and that tine water is a nuisance. To remove and re-erect the bungalow—I do not go into the history of who is to blame and whether the local authority gave notice to the Ministry of Works about the subsoil—would cost £850. Clearly it would be wrong to waste material and resources to remove that temporary prefabricated bungalow, which is nearing the end of its life. It would be much better to use that money to make a permanent house.
The Weir Hall Road bungalow is a case where it is probable that the Ministry of Works did not provide adequate foundation. The local authority argue with some force and a great deal of merit that the responsibility is not theirs. To remove and re-erect that house and to consolidate its site will cost about £1,000. In all frankness we must say that that large sum of money is not—
Mr. Irving: If the Parliamentary Secretary will allow me to interrupt, did not the Tottenham Borough Council make an offer to the Ministry to undertake the work to the first bungalow that subsided for £200 and they refused to agree to that figure?
Mr. Marples: As far as I know, there is no question of £200 being the cost of the work. The estimate I have before me is £1,000 for this one and £850 for the other.
Mr. Irving: That is for completely dismantling and reassembling. In my opinion there is no need to dismantle and reassemble. All that is needed is the remedial work to the bungalow to do the reinforcements which should have been done when they were originally erected.
Mr. Marples: I speak with a little personal knowledge of this because, before I reached my present position I was a building contractor and I erected over 1,000 of these houses myself. It is always

2109
a difficult technical task to put the foundations right when there is a superstructure on those foundations. It is something which no contractor would enter into lightly and give a guarantee that the work would be satisfactory. I am not saying that in this Tottenham have not put up a good scheme but, in general, if I were back at my old job which I had to leave when I took up this office, I would say that I could take no responsibility for the work generally because work of that nature is pretty tricky.
A brick wall was suggested around one of the houses—the Forster Road bungalow—in order to try to keep the water from invading the house. Whether it would result in a satisfactory solution of the flooding is open to doubt. I have always found in building that it is much better to remove the cause of the damage—in this case the flooding—rather than to try to stop it coming into the house. If, however, Tottenham would like that looked at again I promise the hon. Gentleman to do so, but if that alternative method of putting up a wall —which frankly is a cheap job—
Mr. Irving: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give way again? The officials of the Ministry have been down and seen the job and their estimate is £175. If the base had been built six inches higher, as recommended by the borough engineer originally, this would have been avoided.
Mr. Marples: I would rather not enter into the question of who was responsible for the original damage because it would not help the case, but if that wall would provide the solution and that alternative remedy is desired by the Tottenham Borough Council, I promise the hon. Gentleman that we will look at it again. However, once that remedial work has been done, which may or may not result in a good job, there would be no question of accepting any further liability.
There is one other point, the question of the repairs to the temporary bungalows which will be a heavy burden on the finances either of the local authority or of the Exchequer. The local authorities are responsible for the repair and maintenance of the houses on their property, and the local authority is required
2110
to pay to the Minister a sum of £23 10s. a year for each house. An abatement of this amount may be allowed in any case in which the local authority, because of heavy maintenance costs of its temporary houses, finds that the charge on the housing revenue account exceeds more than the equivalent of £8 a year per house. In this way local authorities are protected against unduly heavy expenditure on maintenance.
Mr. Irving: Again, if I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman, that provides that where the amount exceeds £8—in this case all the bungalows—the amount is £16 which has to be found in addition to the £23 10s. a year a bungalow paid to the Department of the Minister.
Mr. Marples: If it exceeds the £8, they can apply for assistance, in which case it will not fall on the local authority. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) raised this point. He is not in his place now, but he asked if something could be done about the West Ham temporary prefabricated bungalows because they were causing the local authority a good deal of maintenance costs. If the hon. Gentleman cares to look up paragraph 39 of the Memorandum to which I referred earlier in my speech, he will find his answer there. I hope that as far as Tottenham is concerned, I have given the hon. Member some satisfaction by saying that we will look at that particular building.
Mr. Irving: If the Minister is not prepared to take on the work, it would be ridiculous to dismantle and re-erect it, because that would be far too expensive and we want to keep the dwelling if we can. Would the Minister be prepared to accept the Tottenham offer of doing the job themselves at £200 a bungalow?
Mr. Marples: I promised that I will look at it closely and will get my right hon. Friend to take into consideration all the points that both Tottenham and the hon. Member have put forward, but I do not think one can conclude a deal of that nature at this late hour after such a varying debate.
Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), perhaps I may be permitted to ask a question about the observation

2111
of the Parliamentary Secretary. Was the hon. Gentleman conveying to the House that in certain contingencies the State would take on the responsibility of maintenance of these bungalows?
Mr. Marples: No. Under certain circumstances, the local authority will be able to make a claim for financial assistance if the repairing becomes excessive. It is referred to in paragraph 39 of the Memorandum, which I mentioned earlier, which was sent out with the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944. That is where the hon. Member will find the details.
After dealing with the Tottenham case, we had a long debate in which over a dozen Members took part, and it may not be easy for me to answer every hon. Member. As not many of them are now in their places, they cannot accuse me of discourtesy if I do not answer their questions. As there are 1,500 local authorities in the country and a good number of the hon. Members referred to the housing conditions in their areas, they will forgive me because I cannot carry details of the 1,500 local authorities in my head.
To the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), I say that we were not laughing on the Front Bench at the deplorable housing position in the country as a whole or in Newcastle in particular. I was surprised that he accused Members on the Front Bench of doing that, because we were not, as, I think, he knows perfectly well. I also say to him that it would be unwise for me to enter into Newcastle's local political squabbles. There is always a great controversy when a block of flats is being erected. Some people say that it is too big, others say that there should be more houses and not flats, and there are those who say on amenity grounds that the design is wrong.
My right hon. Friend makes decisions, but I assure the hon. Member that he does not want to intervene in these local matters unless he cannot avoid it. He prefers to keep out of disputes. It is for Newcastle to settle for itself what building it wants. Once it has settled that, my right hon. Friend will not interfere, neither will he in any way bring pressure to bear on local authorities as regards allotting more houses to private builders. The ratio of one-half to private builders
2112
is permissive, and not mandatory. Under no circumstances will my right hon. Friend bring pressure to bear on any authority.
Mr. Short: As regards the flats scheme, the Minister will agree that he must give his consent before a scheme of that kind can go forward and that in giving his consent he will consider all the circumstances. This is one of the circumstances which I am asking him to consider: the very high rents which are to be charged for these flats.
Mr. Marples: The hon. Member has been rather dogmatic about the scheme as a whole and has given quite a number of views upon it. If the Minister has to decide on that Long Benton scheme, he will take all the questions into account, but if Newcastle can settle it without my right hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend will be indeed grateful. I should like to speak about housing generally.
Mr. P. Roberts: Before my hon. Friend goes on to that, I wonder whether he could give any indication on the point I raised which deals with the question of Sheffield? Can he say whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to try to redress the lack of houses authorised for Sheffield during the past'? Can he give an assurance that if there is any lack of building it will not be because of the lack of authority or licences issued by his Department?
Mr. Marples: I shall deal with that point in dealing with the general policy. The first requisite of a good housing policy is to create confidence in the building industry and the building materials industry. The only way to do that is by having an expanding rather than a contracting programme. A business either goes up or down, but very rarely remains stationary and if it is expanding more people are attracted to it.
The first thing my right hon. Friend did to create that confidence which hitherto has been missing in the housing field was to say to local authorities, "You can build as many houses as you have the materials and men to build." In other words, if there are resources in any particular area a local authority can apply and get further instalments of houses which they can build. Previously there was a rigid annual allocation for

2113
each local authority, and if a local authority had received the allocation of, say, 100 houses for a year and finished them in the first 10 months, they did not build for the last two months.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is it not the fact that during the time of the previous Administration there was never an occasion when the programme of a local authority was held up because it had reached the ceiling? Was not that the phenomenon of the situation right through?
Mr. Marples: All I can say to the hon. Member is that as there was a national ceiling, and when it was translated into local authority areas, it must have meant that there was a ceiling there as well for the simple reason that the housing figures for the last six months show what can be done when the ceiling is lifted. If the industry knows that there is a ceiling, obviously they will have no incentive to go above it.
Mr. Keenan: Is there not a ceiling at present?
Mr. Marples: No, my right hon. Friend has said there is not a ceiling at all. It is a much higher target, a 50 per cent. target.
Mr. Keenan: It is a ceiling.
Mr. Marples: No, that is the interim figure but this is the practice for the immediate future. In the last four or five years the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said at this Box, "We shall keep the housing programme at 200,000 a year." That was a rigid ceiling. If that is done we cannot get productivity.
Many hon. Members have said during this debate that a great deal of building has been cut down and that we are building houses because we are not building factories, or schools, or hospitals. Let us look at the housing labour force given in the housing return for 31st March. These are the figures. The labour force at 30th September, 1951, was 207,600 male operatives of 16 and over on new housing. On 31st December, 1951, the figure was 197,300. On 31st March, 1952—a provisional figure which may be subject to slight fluctuation—it was 205,900. So it can scarcely, be said that labour is leaving
2114
schools and going on to houses. The productivity of the building industry is tending to rise because there is a better supply of materials.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central put his finger on the crux of the housing problem when he said that it is the small practical things like nails and cement which count in house building. If the operatives know that materials will arrive, productivity will naturally and immediately increase. The figures have not been swollen out of proportion. I think there are a few more engaged now than in March, but I can assure the House that the figures have not been swollen.
What we have done with the materials is to concentrate first on increasing production, and there has been a greater increase in the output of building materials this last four or five months than in any previous four or five months since the war. Secondly we have concentrated on reducing the consumption of building materials in the non-housing sector of the building industry. That can be done quite easily by using certain methods—saving steel by using reinforced rods instead of heavy structural steel. By such means my right hon. Friend has achieved these results.
It is just as well to remind the House, because there has been a lot of party chatter into which I do not intend to enter, that completions are 20 per cent. more in the first quarter this year as against last year and that is still being carried on. Starts are more than 20 per cent. over those in the corresponding period last year and the number of houses available for letting is more than in the same period last year.
Mr. George Porter: While the Parliamentary Secretary is on that point of making claims in regard to the finishing of houses during the last two or three months, does he remember his reply to me at Question time that he could not decide in regard to these houses how many had been started during the period of the previous Government?
Mr. Marples: I am always glad to see the hon. Member, who has just come into the Chamber, showing an interest in what I am saying. I did not see him during the debate, but if he had listened

2115
to some of the earlier remarks he would have realised that I was dealing with them.
When the Address in reply to the King's Speech was being debated the Opposition moved what was virtually a vote of censure on my right hon. Friend, and during that debate I think it was the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) who stood at that Despatch Box and said, "When are you going to get these 300,000 houses? In 1950? No. Well then what about 1951?" The tune has completely changed now. Merely because housing is increasing in tempo everyone opposite is saying, "These are the houses we laid down." Why ask us whether we will do it in 1950 or 1951 if that is the case?
Mr. Janner: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central may not have been here the whole time but I have. Is the Parliamentary Secretary going to give some reply to the very pertinent questions which I put to him?
Mr. Marples: I will certainly give some reply to what the hon. Member may call pertinent questions. I had another word for some of them. He knows perfectly well what I think of some of the points he made.
Mr. Janner: If the Parliamentary Secretary had dealt with them earlier he would have known what I think about what he thinks about them.
Mr. Marples: The hon. Member occupied a good deal of time, and the more dogmatic and emphatic he became the less convincing he was. I will deal with his points. Let me take the first one.
Mr. P. Roberts: Before my hon. Friend does so, will he say if I am right in assuming that the answer to the point I have been pressing is that it is up to the local authority to get on with the job?
Mr. Marples: Yes, if the local authority will ask the principal regional officer of the Ministry of Housing he will give all the assistance possible. If they can show that they have resources of men and materials they will be given additional instalments.
Mr. H. Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend answer the point put by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) about the land shortage in that part of the country being one of the difficulties? Would my hon. Friend consider freeing single plots from licensing altogether so that use can be made of land not within the scope of local housing plans?
Mr. Marples: It is a consideration which I will bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member should look at the Town Development Bill which allows for excessive population in congested areas going outside into expanded towns.
Now for a word or two about the rent tribunals. First, would the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) tell me whether the letter he read out came from a paid servant of a rent tribunal?
Mr. Janner: It came from the Clerk of the Chester Tribunal.
Mr. Marples: He was a paid servant who has a personal interest in keeping that tribunal alive—
Mr. Janner rose—
Mr. Marples: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Member. I must appeal to the House. I have given way a reasonable amount and the hon. Member has had a long innings. Now I shall give him his answers. I wish to ask the hon. Member how many cases does that rent tribunal decide a week?
Mr. Janner: The answer is that it does not decide any now because the Government have stopped the rent tribunal.
Mr. Marples: How many cases has that rent tribunal decided in the last three months? Tell us.
Mr. Janner: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Marples: This is a very important question—
Mr. Elwyn Jones: On a point of order. I have no desire to intervene in this squabble, but is it in order for a Minister of the Crown to allege in this House against a professional servant who is a clerk of a tribunal appointed by Her

2117
Majesty's Government that in some way or other his motives in regard to this tribunal are based upon professional, mercenary and personal interest and the continuance of his activities?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Marples: I am surprised at the hon. Member making that intervention. Any Member of the House who makes a contribution to debate normally tells the House what his personal interest is. I was merely finding out who the letter was from, I did not know who it was from. The hon. Member did not say.
Mr. Janner: On a point of order. Has a Minister, having asked a question, the right in this House to attack an individual?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Minister is responsible for the statements he makes, not me.
Mr. Marples: I asked the hon. Member whether he knows how many cases this tribunal decides in a week. He has no idea how many it has decided in the last three months of its existence. The
2118
question to consider in respect of rent tribunals is what volume of work is being done by a particular tribunal.
Mr. Janner: Indeed it is not.
Mr. Marples: What has happened is that that particular tribunal was doing hardly any work at all. The applicants were going to the tribunal and not always the tribunal to the applicants. My right hon. Friend has regrouped the rent tribunals so that there is a mobile tribunal which will go to the applicant. The applicant will not have to go 20 or 30 miles, as the hon. Member has said the tribunal will go to the applicant if he makes an inquiry of the local authority. They have been so grouped that the number of references which these people will have to decide in a month is about 30.
Surely it cannot be said—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

HOUSING, SCOTLAND
  Rural Dwellings (Reconditioning Grants)
  Rural Dwellings (Reconditioning Grants)
  Prefabricated Timber Houses (Pool)
  Prefabricated Timber Houses (Pool)
  Property Maintenance
  Property Maintenance
SCOTLAND
  Police Resignations
  Police Resignations
  Opencast Mining, East Lothian
  Opencast Mining, East Lothian
  Quarrying Industry
  Quarrying Industry
  Close Season for Deer (Committee)
  Close Season for Deer (Committee)
  EMERGENCY LAWS (RE-ENACTMENT)
  EMERGENCY LAWS (RE-ENACTMENT)
  KOREA (SOCIETY OF FRIENDS' APPEAL)
  KOREA (SOCIETY OF FRIENDS' APPEAL)
BRITISH ARMY
  Plymouth Hoe
  Plymouth Hoe
  Soldiers, Korea (Charges)
  Soldiers, Korea (Charges)
  Suez Canal Zone (Families' Accommodation)
  Suez Canal Zone (Families' Accommodation)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Textile Imports
  Textile Imports
  Fruit Pulp Imports
  Fruit Pulp Imports
  N.E. Trading Estates Ltd. (Workers)
  N.E. Trading Estates Ltd. (Workers)
  Highland Development Area (New Industries)
  Highland Development Area (New Industries)
  National Film Finance Corporation (Advances)
  National Film Finance Corporation (Advances)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Reserve Certificates (Interest Rate)
  Tax Reserve Certificates (Interest Rate)
  Nationalised Industries (Retired Workers' Pensions)
  Nationalised Industries (Retired Workers' Pensions)
  National Fund (Investments)
  National Fund (Investments)
  Coinage (Decimalisation)
  Coinage (Decimalisation)
  GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (POWERS OF ENTRY)
  GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (POWERS OF ENTRY)
  WATER SUPPLIES, BROAD OAK
  WATER SUPPLIES, BROAD OAK
HOUSING
  Harlow
  Harlow
  Schemes, London (Steel Supplies)
  Schemes, London (Steel Supplies)
  LAND, NORTH DEVON (GOVERNMENT DECISION)
  LAND, NORTH DEVON (GOVERNMENT DECISION)
  SWIMMING BATH, ETON COLLEGE
  SWIMMING BATH, ETON COLLEGE
  UNEMPLOYMENT, SUNDERLAND
  UNEMPLOYMENT, SUNDERLAND
  MANCHESTER MILITARY SERVICE (HARDSHIP) COMMITTEE
  MANCHESTER MILITARY SERVICE (HARDSHIP) COMMITTEE
  LICENSED PREMISES, NEW TOWNS
  LICENSED PREMISES, NEW TOWNS
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Scarce Materials (Manufacturers' Allocations)
  Scarce Materials (Manufacturers' Allocations)
  Domestic Sugar Bonus
  Domestic Sugar Bonus
  COAL (DOMESTIC STOCKS)
  COAL (DOMESTIC STOCKS)
  HUNTING AIR TRAVEL LTD. (LONDON—NAIROBI SERVICE)
  HUNTING AIR TRAVEL LTD. (LONDON—NAIROBI SERVICE)
  RAILWAY SUPERANNUITANTS
  RAILWAY SUPERANNUITANTS

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

OIL FROM PERSIA
2.36 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any American oil operators are involved in deals to procure oil claimed by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and to inquire what action the Government contemplate to convey to the United States the strong resentment which would be caused in this country by such proceedings.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, in spite of the reports which have been in circulation, no American oil operators have, so far as I am aware, been involved to any but a negligible extent in deals of this kind. I can assure the noble Lord that the United States Government are fully aware of our views on attempts to deal in this oil, and I have every reason to believe that they share them.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that, and I am grateful for a reply that gives complete satisfaction.

REFUGEES FROM IRON CURTAIN COUNTRIES
2.37 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Consular Section of the Soviet Embassy is exerting, directly or indirectly, any pressure in any form on refugees in this country to induce or intimidate them to return to Soviet-controlled territory; and whether in such case Her Majesty's Government will notify the Soviet Embassy that such interference in our domestic affairs must definitely cease.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware that officials of the Soviet Embassy in London have endeavoured to induce refugees in this country to return to Soviet-controlled territory. They have also good reason to believe that to many refugees these approaches are unwelcome and that in some cases they have aroused anxiety or apprehension. These activities on the part of the Soviet Embassy are being carefully watched with a view to ascertaining whether methods amounting to direct intimidation or coercion are employed. If any such evidence were received, Her Majesty's Government would take a serious view of it. Meanwhile, I should like to take this opportunity to repeat and to emphasise that refugees are in no sense obliged to entertain such approaches, let alone yield to them, and they should report to the police any cases in which they consider that improper pressure is being exercised on them. Refugees resident in this country can rest assured that they have the full protection of our courts and that no foreign authority can by arbitrary action force them to leave this country against their will.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I am again grateful for an answer which seems to require no supplementary question. May I presume that the noble Marquess, in giving that reply, is aware of the fact that some of these unhappy people in this country live in a state of anxiety not only on their own account but also on behalf of their relatives behind the Iron Curtain?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Yes, my Lords, we are very well aware of that.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
DERBY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
2.39 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bills: Bills reported without amendment.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
2.42 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.—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Amendment of Section 64 of principal Act
5.—(1) Where the parent or guardian of a child or young person proves to a juvenile court that he is unable to control that child or young person, any order of the court under section sixty-four of the principal Act that the child or young person be sent to an approved school shall not require the agreement of the local authority within whose area the child or young person is resident, and accordingly the proviso to the said section sixty-four is hereby repealed.
(2) Before dealing with an application under the said section sixty-four, the court shall cause to be sent—

(a) to the probation officer, or one of the probation officers, for the probation area in which the court sits; and

(b) to the local authority for the district in which the child or young person is resident,

a notification of the application and of the clay and hour when it is to be considered, and for the put poses of subsection (2) of section thirty-five of the principal Act (which relates to the making of investigations and the rendering of information to the court by a local authority) the notification shall be deemed to be a notification under the said section thirty-five.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved to omit subsection (1). The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment with which many local
1050
authorities who take a deep interest in the welfare of the unruly or difficult child are concerned. It calls, I think, for just a few words of exposition. Under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, a parent or guardian can bring a child before the juvenile court as being out of control, and can ask for an order that the child be sent to an approved school or put under a probation officer or some other fit person. A juvenile court can make that order if the parent assents. Under the existing law, which dates from 1908—this is not a new provision—an order committing the child to an approved school, which of course is the most severe form of order, as it removes the child entirely from the charge of its parents, is also subject to the assent of the local authority. The importance of that, from the point of view of the welfare of the child, is that all parents are not patient or judicious; and some parents might apply for an order for reference of a child to an approved school in a manner which might well be criticised by somebody who knew the circumstances of the family. Such a person, of course, would be the welfare officer of the local authority.
This power has been exercised, as the local authorities believe, with great advantage to the decision of difficult cases, by the local authority refusing its assent to an order until a further opportunity has been given the parent and the juvenile court to consider the case after, as it were, hearing the case for the child against the severity of an order committing him to an approved school. Local authorities feel strongly oh this matter and have expressed their great regret that they should be deprived by this subsection of this power of intervening in these cases, because they believe that their power has been exercised very much to the advantage of a just decision. I venture to ask the promoters of the Bill and Her Majesty's Government to give further consideration to this matter and to ascertain whether, possibly after further inquiries and the consideration of alternative measures, by omitting this subsection from the Bill, an opportunity may be given for preserving this valuable potentiality on behalf of the local authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 8, leave out subsection —(Lord Kennet.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: I have communicated with the Home Office for the purpose of being the better informed about this rather technical matter and, of course, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Kennet has just said. I need not say that any further consideration which he feels might properly be given to the matter shall be given; but as for the moment I am acting as the promoter of the Bill, following the advice of the Home Department I cannot accept his Amendment. Allow me to point out briefly why. My noble friend said just now that the effect of the subsection was to deprive the local authorities of power to intervene in these cases. That is really not so. What the clause does is to remove the absolute power of the local authority to veto the sending of a child to an approved school. At the same time, in subsection (2) it provides that, before a juvenile court can deal with an application under this clause, the court must send the local authority for the district in which the young person is resident a notification of the application and of the date when it is going to be considered. The object of that requirement is to make sure that the local authority will put all its views and information before the juvenile court. Therefore, it is not the case that the local authority is being deprived of any power of intervention; but it is being deprived of the power of veto.
This power might have been a perfectly proper one for the local authority to exercise in times past, when juvenile courts were just beginning; and in some cases there was a financial reason why they might be disposed to do so, because in the old days the local authority would escape the burden which might follow from an order of the juvenile court. But since 1948, by Act of Parliament, the juvenile court has had power to place a child brought before the court under the care of the local authority, without the leave of the local authority at all; and as soon as the child is placed under the care of the local authority the financial burdens, whatever they may be, will follow. Therefore, I venture to think that, although the noble Lord's argument sounds attractive, it is really addressed to a past situation which no longer exists. The real question is: who is to be the body which is mainly responsible for deciding what is to be done in the case
1052
of a child who is beyond control and who has to be dealt with? I think experience has shown that the juvenile court is the body which ought to exercise that responsibility. But, of course, the juvenile court ought not to do it in a way which is opposed by the local authority, unless the local authority has the opportunity of pointing out the considerations which make them doubt whether such an order would be justified.
That, in brief, is the reason why I cannot accept the Amendment. It is the juvenile court, and not the local authority which is now constituted as the authority to decide on the treatment of the juvenile There is now no financial question involved, because the burden on the local authority, whatever it is, will fall on them one way or the other. From the advice which I have received from the Home Office—and I think it is right—it appears to me that this is a useful and convenient change in the law, and not at all a serious one. It is not one that tells the local authority that it must no longer intervene but one which says that the local authority no longer has a power of veto but can present to the court whatever considerations it feels should be born, in mind before the fate of the child is decided. I venture, most respectfully, to say to my noble friend that I cannot accept his Amendment as one which is intervening in the interests of the child The juvenile court are doing nothing except to decide things as best they can in the interests of the child, and it is right that the local authority should con tribute its own information and views which will be the effect of Clause 5 in it remains as it is at present. I am sure my noble friend will appreciate that I have considered this Amendment carefully, and not without a desire to understand the arguments put forward. I he sees fit to communicate with me at a later stage, I will certainly obtain from the Home Office any further information and advice that seems desirable, but I am afraid that I cannot now accept the Amendment.
LORD KENNET: I am obliged to my noble and learned friend for his offer o communication upon this subject. It may be some reassurance to the local authorities that there will be no discontinuation or cessation of the opportunity offered

1053
to them of intervening and of being heard. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) to leave out all words from the beginning of the paragraph down to "in" and to insert:
(a) to a probation officer appointed for or assigned to the petty sessional division."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment and the next, although having a rasher elaborate appearance, are purely drafting Amendments, for the purpose of bringing the language of the clause strictly into line with that which has been used in the earlier Acts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 19, and insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I beg to move the next. Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, at end insert—
"(3) The said section thirty-five shall have effect as if for the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) thereof to the probation officer, or one of the probation officers, for the probation area in which the court or justices will sit there were substituted a reference to a probation officer appointed for or assigned to the petty sessional division in which the court or justices will sit.
(4) For the purposes of this section and of the proviso to subsection (2) of the said section thirty-five, the expression 'petty sessional division' means—

(a) in the case of any place deemed to be a petty sessional division under subsection (2) of section forty-five of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, that place;

(b) in any other case, a petty sessions area within the meaning of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949."—(Viscount Simon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.
2.55 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, after Clause 8 to insert the following new clause:
". Section thirty-five of the principal Act shall be amended as follows:—

(a) by the omission from subsection (2) of the words 'home surroundings'; and

1054

(b) by the omission of the proviso to subsection (2); and

(c) by the insertion of the following new subsection:—

'(3) Investigations as to the home surroundings of the child or young person shall in all cases be made by a probation officer who shall present the report of such investigation to the court at such time as the court may direct."
The noble Lord said: Section 35 of the Act of 1933 lays down that when a child or young person is to be brought before the court, either to answer a criminal charge or as being in need of care or protection, two parties shall be informed before the trial takes place: first, the probation officer, and secondly, the local authority. The section goes on to lay down that in the case of the local authority it shall be mandatory that that authority shall furnish to the court a report of four things: the home surroundings, the school record, the health, and the character of the child. It further lays down that in respect of one of those four things—namely, the home surroundings—a different arrangement may be made by the justices, who may make an order that, instead of the local authority furnishing the report on the home surroundings, it may be done by the probation officer.
That proviso making it optional whether the report on the home surroundings is made by the probation officer or by the local authority was put into the Act, I suggest, because in the year 1933 there were not full-time probation officers all over the country; and if the Act had made it mandatory on the probation service to present these reports the duty could not have been carried out, because there simply were not the officers to do it. Times have changed since 1933, and now it can be said that the whole country is covered by a system of full-t tine probation officers. Therefore, I suggest that it would be an improvement if that which was optional in 1933 were made mandatory in 1953, and that in future the report in respect of the home surroundings (your Lordships will note that this Amendment deals only with home surroundings) should in all cases be furnished, not by the local authority, but by the probation officer. That is really the gist of this Amendment.
I should like to say a few words in support of that contention. It is most undesirable that a multiplicity of inquiries

1055
should be sought from the homes of children before trial. Some inquiries are inevitable and necessary, but there is a good deal of evidence that parents have been very much embarrassed, and even distressed, by so many inquiries having to be made—by the local authority, by the probation service, by the police, and possibly by others. Therefore, the suggestion I make is that, while the local authority should continue to make the reports on the other three subjects—namely, school record, health and character (they are best fitted to do that)—the report on the home surroundings should be exclusively that of the probation officer, because for that, unlike the other three, it is necessary for a visit to be paid to the home. If this Amendment were carried, I believe that the Bill would be improved to that extent. There would be a clear distinction between the duties of these two different authorities. All the Amendment does is to make universal what could have been done before by the order of the justices. That discretion of the justices has not been universally applied—I expect there are some justices who do not even know of it. I feel sure that the Bill could be improved on those lines if this Amendment were accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Merthyr.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: I have considered carefully the suggestion which my noble friend makes in this Amendment, and I have consulted the Home Office about it. The noble Lord is quite right when he indicates that in the majority of cases these investigations as to home surroundings are made by probation officers. But he feels that the law would be improved if we were now to change the Bill and make it a requirement that inquiries as to home surroundings should always be made by the probation officer, and that local authorities should be relieved of this branch of duty in all cases. It would have the effect of making things very tidy, but I am told—and I should myself judge—that it is unwise to lay down so absolute a rule as that. I doubt very much whether, if the local authority were relieved of inquiring into home surroundings in all cases, it would thereby reduce the number of visits to the home, because the section itself says that the local authority
1056
shall provide the court with information not only as to home surroundings but also as to the school record, health, and character of the child. I can imagine a case where, in order to ascertain either the health or the character of the child, it would be natural and desirable to make an inquiry at the home where the child is living. I agree entirely that the multiplicity of official callers is to be discouraged; we ought, so far as possible, to canalise this service and get the appropriate person to do it on behalf of all concerned.
The experience of the Home Office is that there are cases in which it is better to leave the local authorities to make the inquiries, and, indeed, I strongly suspect that there may be local authorities who would object if we legislated that they should not be allowed to do it. From that point of view, this Amendment is in slight contrast to the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kennet, who wanted to increase the powers of the local authorities; this is one which would reduce their powers and duties. I believe that it will be found that it is better to leave the court with an option. The juvenile court now has an option with regard to inquiries into home surroundings—whether they shall be made by the local authority or by the probation officer—and it really is a question, as I am assured, of what is the best thing to do in each locality. By this time the decision about that can surely be left as a matter of discretion in the hands of the justices. As I have said, in most cases probation officers do make the inquiries. There are some where the arrangement is that the local authority staff do it; and the justices are grateful to them for doing so, and find that they do it very well. There is no reason for bringing these arrangements to an end when they work well, or to lay down a fixed rule that in all cases it shall be done in one way and that in no case is it to be done in another way. I hope that my noble friend will recognise this, when he looks into the point closely. If he desires to bring any further particulars about it to the attention of those concerned with the Bill, or to the Home Office itself, I know that they will be only too glad to hear from him. I hope that at this stage the House will agree that we should not make this Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: I should like to say that the argument which the noble and learned Viscount used against the Amendment, in which he said that the local authority ought to be able to inquire into the health and character of the child, is surely an argument against, amongst other things, the proviso which is already in the original Act. If that be a weighty and sound argument, then I suggest that it is an argument against the law as it now stands. I should also like to make this observation. As I understand it, there is nothing in this Amendment which would prevent the local authority from making these inquiries. The noble Viscount said that they ought to be allowed to do it, and I agree. What I am suggesting is that they ought not to be made to do it.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I interpose to observe that my noble friend's Amendment includes these words:
"Investigations as to the home surroundings of the child or young person shall in all cases be made by a probation officer…."
Surely he is not suggesting that the local authority should do it as well?
LORD MERTHYR: There is nothing to say that they may not do it as well. If they want to go to the home to investigate the health and character of the child, then they can do it as well if this Amendment is passed. Finally, the noble Viscount suggested that the present system was working well. It is just because I have at least some evidence to show that it is not working well that I have produced this Amendment. The evidence I have is that it is causing irritation and distress in some homes, as I have said before, that so many different investigations have to be made by so many different officers. It is for that very reason that I am moving this Amendment. However, the noble Viscount says that he cannot at present accept it. I certainly do not wish to divide the House, but in seeking to withdraw this Amendment I should like to take advantage of his offer of further
1058
discussion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule [Consequential amendments of enactments]:
VISCOUNT SIMON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, at end insert—
("3. In section thirty-five—

(a) in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) for the words `the probation officer, or one of the probation officers, fir the probation area' there shall be substituted the words 'a probation officer appointed for or assigned to the petty sessional division';

(b) at the end there stall be added the following new subsection—

"(3) In this section, the expression 'petty sessional division' means—

(a) in the case of any place deemed to be a petty sessional division under subsection (2) of section forty-five of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, that place;

(b) in any other case, a petty sessions area within the meaning of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949 ").—(viscount Simon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 35 and insert—
("(a) to a probation officer appointed for or assigned to the petty sessional division"). —(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: This is a further consequential Amendment. I beg, to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 41, at end insert—
("In this subsection, the expression 'petty sessional division' has the same meaning as in section thirty-five of this Act").—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

HEATING APPLIANCES (FIREGUARDS) BILL
3.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, the object of this short Bill which I wish to present to your Lordships is to cut down a number of accidents which can normally be prevented. In the first place, we should realise that during the year 1951, more than 500 people died as a result of burns and scalds which they suffered in their own homes. The bulk of these deaths were due to the fact that the person's clothing caught fire, chiefly as a result of contact with gas or electric fires. It is quite probable that the figures are even larger than those I have given, because the figures one obtains from the Registrar-General have not been broken down sufficiently to enable a finer analysis to be made. The majority of these fatalities—about 50 per cent. or 60 per cent.—occur among older people, whereas about 15 per cent. occur among young children. The reason why more of the old people died from burns is that the prognosis is generally better in the case of young persons than in the old.
One could go a little further. A large number of people have to attend hospital as in-patients and out-patients suffering from burns which are not necessarily going to prove fatal. I cannot give an exact figure, but I believe that the number who go to hospital as in-patients is between 15,000 and 20,000, whereas the number of those who go as out-patients is something in the neighbourhood of 50,000. This means that about 70,000 people, all told, suffer from this kind of accident every year. Many of those who go into hospital have to stay for a long time. The average is about forty to fifty days but it may be very much longer than that—up to a year, perhaps. These people may not die, but they may suffer from deformity which will probably persist throughout their lives. One of the people who have done much good work in this sphere is Dr. Colebrook, at the Birmingham Accident Hospital. He has told me stories and showed me photographs which were not pleasant to hear or contemplate.
1060
The gas fires and electric fires which are probably the cause of a large number of these accidents are not fixed in a wall but are mobile: one can take them into different rooms. People, therefore, may not be sure where they are and do no get used to the fire being in one particular place. Another difficulty is that eves when they are not mobile, even when they are fixed to a wall, they may no be standing on a normal fireplace of hearth. In one recent case on a housing estate it was found that there was no proper protection and no obvious mantel piece or fireplace to be avoided. There was, in short, nothing to show where the fire was. Moreover, the height of these fires is such that anyone wearing a dressing-gown or a frock is liable to catch it against the fire. There is a further difficulty. Young children an sometimes fascinated by the bright colour, and they have been known not only to brush the elements with their frocks but also to try, as curious children will, to touch or grasp the bright element. And, of course, if they do, they get their fingers badly burned; or their frock may take fire, with the result that they are permanently deformed. A further cause of these accidents is that a person may reach over the fire, if there is a mantelpiece above it, perhaps to adjust something, or to look into a mirror. In a moment, a woman's frock may be a mass of flames. It is very easy for a person to be burned to death in this way, for clothing ignites very quickly.
The main point of this Bill is to prohibit the sale of gas, electric or oil fires which are not fitted with a proper guard. I believe that there are certain powers under the Children Act of 1908 which make it possible for proceedings to be instituted against persons held to be responsible for such an accident. But the fact that a child has been killed is regarded as sufficient punishment for parents alleged to be responsible, and the authorities are very loth indeed in such cases to institute proceedings under that Act. If I may briefly run over the points of the Bill, your Lordships will observe that the first clause prohibits the sale of gas, electric or oil-burning fires which are not fitted with a proper guard, or a guard which does not comply with certain standards prescribed by the regulations. The second clause gives local authorities power to inspect fires which are exposed for

1061
sale, and also to apply certain tests which are prescribed by the regulations. The third clause provides the penalty for people who offend and the fourth clause gives power to local authorities to prosecute. The fifth and sixth clauses are the most important, because they give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations laying down the standards of the guards to be employed. The last clause gives the various definitions.
The Bill does not apply to fires at present installed in houses, and so on, so there is no question of people having their fires inspected. Moreover, time would be required for manufacturers and shopkeepers to dispose of stocks which they already hold. It has been said that the guard will make the fire much more expensive, but in fact it will not add materially to the cost of the fire; nor will it reduce the fire's efficiency. The expenditure of materials would not be great. The Bill has the support of a very large number of manufacturers of fires. There was a Committee on the British Standards Institution on which I had the privilege to sit. That Committee sat for four years, and eventually worked out a standard—Standard 1670: 1951. This is a small but important Bill, and I trust that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amulree.)
3.18 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords. I rise on behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House merely to give a warm welcome to this Bill. In view of the number of items on the Order Paper to-day I do not propose to inflict a speech on your Lordships. I will say only that this Bill has our very warm support.
3.19 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, I do not want to labour any point in connection with this Bill, which is obviously receiving support from all sides of the House, but I should like to take the opportunity of paying a tribute to the patient and devoted service and researches of Dr. Colebrook. He has received his reward in the number of lives that his researches and services have saved, not only in respect of puerperal fever but in this field of burns. But the saving of lives has only further emphasised
1062
the importance of providing against the dangers of these heating appliances; for those who to-day survive degrees of burns which in the old days were fatal are sufferers from terrible pain, often involving long-continued treatment, and in the end, great disfigurement and deformity.
There is one point which I should like to emphasise—namely, that these electrical gas and oil-burning appliances are not a big cause of burns in children and old people particularly. The ordinary open fire remains, as Dr. Colebrook has vividly said, the outstanding hazard of the English home. But I believe that, when this Bill becomes law, as it promises to do, it will prove a stimulus to further research in making articles of clothing flame-proof, and that that will contribute something towards resolving the major danger from the open fire. I believe that it will also lead to the manufacture of an easily attachable guard to existing apparatus. I hope that these results will be realised.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, this is a Bill the purpose of which is wholly laudable, arid Her Majesty's Government are grateful to those who have produced it and submitted it to your Lordships' House. I suppose that all of us have at some moment, possibly at a good many moments, been subject to a shock of apprehension at seeing either ourselves or somebody else in the room obviously within dangerous proximity to an unguarded fire. Although the promoters of the Bill would not contend that the passage of this Bill will remove all risk of such accidents happening, at the same time it does seem reasonable to expect that it will, to a considerable and valuable extent, reduce those risks. From that point of view, Her Majesty's Government welcome the Bill. It may perhaps be an encouragement to the noble Lord who introduced it in your Lordships' House to say that if, as appears reasonably possible horn the course of proceedings this afternoon, the Bill does pass into law, every effort will be made to issue the regulations, after consultation with the authorities concerned, with the minimum of delay.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COCKFIGHTING BILL
3.22 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I must apologise for rising a second time to move the Second Reading of a Bill which is rather like a Bill that I brought about two years ago to your Lordships' House but which did not have the luck to get on the Statute Book. I hope this one may have better fortune. I should like to recapitulate briefly a few facts about cockfighting. Cockfighting was made illegal in the year 1853, but a good deal of evidence has accumulated in the past hundred years that a certain number of cockfights—or, as they are called, "mains"—have been held in various parts of the country. It is very difficult to track them down because naturally great precautions are taken by the promoters to hold them in secret. Generally the day and place where they are to be held are kept secret until the day of the "main." The place where it is to occur is very well guarded, while the birds are conveyed in cars, milk floats or covered vans; and, if they are stopped, the people concerned say they are taking the birds to show. However, several successful prosecutions have taken place in recent years, notably between 1927 and 1938, when there were about a dozen prosecutions, which ranged over a large part of the country—Lancashire, Derbyshire, Yorkshire, Hampshire and Cumberland. They were not confined to any one place.
The point of this Bill is to make it simpler, in a way, to enforce the existing law by making it illegal to rear and keep birds for cockfighting. The rearing of birds for cockfighting involves four separate operations: first, the taking away of the comb or wattle of the cockerel; secondly, cutting the wing feathers short; thirdly, cutting the tail feathers; and, fourthly, taking off the natural spurs from the bird's legs. In order that a person shall not get into trouble if these things are done to meet ordinary natural requirements, the Bill does not cover a bird which has only had its comb or wattle taken off and/or its wing feathers clipped. By reason only of that,
"a domestic fowl shall not be deemed to be prepared for use in fighting …"
Birds kept in fenced yards are liable to fly over the fence, so it will not be an
1064
offence under the Bill for the wings to be clipped. It is the four operations I have mentioned which are made illegal.
The second point of the Bill is to prohibit people keeping appliances for cockfighting. The one appliance which is kept for cockfighting is a metal spur which is tied to the bird's leg. It is a very wicked and vicious object, about a couple of inches long. It is sharp, and the birds carry on their fighting with it. Many people keep these spurs as museum pieces and in collections. Under the terms of the Bill, the court shall not deem it an offence if the spurs are obviously kept for sentimental reasons or by collectors; or if a person had a spur in his pocket, as I have now, he would not be liable to prosecution. This Bill will help to make it possible to enforce the law passed in 1853. I do not think the Bill will cause any trouble to people who want to keep fowls lawfully and reasonably, and I hope your Lordships will be good enough to give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Amulree.)
3.28 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, for reasons similar to those mentioned by me in respect of the Bill which preceded this one, I beg to give the support of my noble friends on this side of the House to this Bill. In addition, I think I ought to compliment the noble Lord on having the great good fortune to introduce two such Bills in one day for your Lordships' consideration.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I rise to give a welcome and full support to the noble Lord's Bill. I think it is fair to say that, whatever else is said about us or this country to-day, we are still paramount in the world in our interpretation of the word "sport." When we find a sport such as cockfighting debasing itself, we remove it from the realm of our activities and recreations. From what the noble Lord has said, however, there are obviously a few people who choose this cruel amusement for their own personal gain, either by trying to make a fortune out of a wager or by being paid what to-day would be called black market sums for managing and administering the cock stables for these fights. There is no doubt

1065
about it that the noble Lord's Bill will go a long way to remove this abuse. Before I close, I should like to say that this Bill pays a great tribute to our Parliamentary system, in that, in the middle of all the troubles, difficulties and arguments that we have to-day, we can give a few moments to bettering the lot of a few barndoor fowls. With those remarks, I beg to give Her Majesty's Government's support to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TOWN DEVELOPMENT BILL
3.30 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 Lloyd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Definition of town development
1.—(1) In this Act the expression "town development" means development in a county district (or partly in one such district and partly in another) which will have the effect, and is undertaken primarily for the purpose, of providing accommodation for residential purposes (with or without accommodation for the carrying on of industrial or other activities, and with any public services and other incidentals needed) the provision whereof will relieve congestion or over-population elsewhere.
LORD HAMPTON LORD HAMPTON moved, in subsection (1), after "services" to insert, "including playing fields." The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I do not think I need detain the Committee for very long. This Bill is called the Town Development Bill. I assume that that title means the complete development of our towns, old or new, to be in every way suitable places for habitation in modern conditions. If this is so, it is inconceivable to me how any town can regard itself as having reached that standard unless adequate provision, or as adequate provision as can be made, is forthcoming in regard to playing fields. I believe the Minister in another place agreed that provision for playing fields was desirable—I rather wish he had used the word "essential"; I think that would
1066
have been more suitable. There is no doubt that the Government now and for a long time past have been thinking in the same way. In regard to local education authorities' policy, the Ministry of Education issued a circular (No. 242) on December 7 last, part of which reads:
"No doubt there are certain directions in which drastic economies could not be made without serious detriment to the health and well-being of children and young persons; the Minister has in mind particularly, in the field of primary and secondary education, the expenditure on playgrounds and facilities for physical education."
It finishes up by saying:
"But with these reservations the Minister must ask authorities to review the whole of their expenditure under this Section with a view to making economies wherever possible."
In the Housing Act of 1936 we find these words:
".…that the layout and construction of public streets or roads and open spaces is part of the provision of housing accommodation."
There are many instances where land has already been scheduled for the purpose of playing fields by local authorities, but for one reason or another, chiefly financial, they cannot at present take up the land and develop it for its original purpose.
The National Playing Fields Association are anxious—and they are not alone in that anxiety—about the fact that there is no provision in the present Bill to empower the Minister to make grants for the purpose of playing fields. As the Committee probably know, this Association founded twenty-seven years ago, have done a great deal to improve the playing field situation throughout the country. From the outset, and after a most careful survey, they set themselves a target of six acres per thousand of the population. To-day, after twenty-seven year of strenuous effort and with the ready co-operation of local authorities throughout the country, they have been able to secure no more than roughly one and a half acres per thousand. The difficulty of finding big open spaces is great and is growing. The needs of housing, allotments, agriculture and aerodromes, and the requirements of other services, mean that competition for any available land is keener now than at any time in our history, yet the need for playing fields is greater, especially in the case of children. It is admitted that the scarcity of playing fields

1067
is a serious factor in road accidents among the children, and all social workers agree that the same lack of space for organised games is one of the causes of the more dangerous types of child delinquency. We want our children to be near their own homes to play games, but on grass and not in the streets.
We are spending hundreds of millions of pounds annually on our National Health Service, but surely adequate playing fields, or as adequate as we can make them, should be looked upon as an essential complement to that Service. I know that local authorities are doing what they can, and I feel sure that the Government is alive to the need. I realise that our present economic condition is a stumbling block to what the Government would like to do; but the general financial stringency throughout the country is a stumbling block also to what local authorities would like to do. We all sympathise with Her Majesty's Ministers in the harassing problems of to-day in keeping their estimates of expenditure pared down to the bare bone; yet I am informed on good authority, that in many cases quite a small grant, given at the right time and in the right place, may make just the difference between the ability to develop a site probably already scheduled, and sadly letting it go. Once gone, in all probability it can never be recovered.
The National Playing Fields Association have done, and are doing, what they can in the matter of grants, and are, I believe, allocating £27,000 this year for the purpose of playing fields. Distributed throughout the whole country that is not a large sum, but necessarily their funds are limited. By the way, I am sorry that the Chairman of the Association, Lord Luke, cannot be with us to-day. I know he wanted to speak, but I believe that at this moment he is flying on his way to Helsinki as a member of the Committee of the Olympic Games. In addition to these grants, throughout the history of the Association there have been many generous private gifts of land and many schemes sponsored by local authorities. Could not the Government play their part for this purpose, looking upon it as a long-term investment—a gilt-edged investment—and one carrying with it in the years to come a rate of interest out of all proportion to the capital involved? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after ("services") insert ("including playing fields").—(Lord Hampton.)
LORD SILKIN: I rise to support the Amendment, which I regard as perhaps the most important Amendment on the Marshalled List to-day. It is an Amendment which, I am sure, will command the support of the whole Committee. I anticipate that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will tell us how sympathetic he is to the idea of playing fields, and then possibly will tell us that we cannot have the support of Her Majesty's Government to provide them. That support is important, not only for the full reasons, which I wholly support, given by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, but because it is urgent that playing fields should be provided at the very beginning of the development of a large area: once the area becomes built on it is too late.
In these days there is a tremendous amount of pressure upon local authorities to use their land to the fullest possible extent. There is the financial pressure, the desire to build at the highest possible density. There is also pressure from agricultural interests—and quite rightly—who are anxious that wherever possible not a single acre of land should be used for purposes other than farming. It is quite likely that local authorities developing areas under the conditions of this Bill will succumb to that joint pressure, unless they have some encouragement from Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, I should like to see these words inserted in the Bill, showing that it is a matter of serious policy on the part of the Government to ensure that, wherever development of this kind takes place, the question of playing fields must be taken into consideration. I think on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, said that there was not much money involved in this matter—that local authorities could easily provide the money because these playing fields were being provided in areas where land was cheap, and I think that that is true. At any rate, to a certain extent there is a good deal of truth in it. There is not much money involved, and one would say that the Government can much more easily afford the small amount which may be involved than some of the local authorities who are going to incur considerable expense in rehousing their

1069
populations outside their areas, or the receiving authorities who are going to incur expense in providing for the people who will be going to their districts. So we are not talking about a great deal of Honey.
I am much more concerned about a gesture; about having it on record in the Bill that the Government do attach importance to the question of playing fields, and will make some contribution. The amount of that contribution really does not matter. I am not at all concerned whether the contribution is small or large. Indeed it is left entirely to the discretion of the Minister; there is nothing in the Bill at all which affects it. But I attach importance to the principle of making a contribution, and I hope, therefore, that if the noble Lord is not able to accept the Amendment, at least he will be prepared to go back to the Minister and tell him that there is really strong feeling in the House about it—as I believe there is—and that it is not a question of spending any large amount of money, but really of showing the concern of Her Majesty's Government on this question and of ensuring that at the outset of development provision is made for playing fields. If the noble Lord can give us an assurance that he is prepared to do that, then, perhaps, we shall live to fight another day.
3.43 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: I do not think that here is a great deal between us here—certainly there is not on the principle of my noble friend's Amendment. We recognise, as fully as he does and as fully as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, does, the necessity of playing fields in any properly developed community. Of course, your Lordships must remember that these town development schemes are going to be worked out as planned development, with all the essential amenities planned in advance. I can give this definite assurance to my noble friend: that the Government have very much at heart the whole question of proper provision being made for playing fields in any development that takes place under this Bill. The noble Lord, I think, stated that there is no provision in the Bill for this purpose. That in a sense is true; but perhaps in another sense it is not entirely true. In all cases these schemes have to be considered on their merits and
1070
what is done will depend upon a number of factors—for example, the amount of money the "exporting" authority will be able to contribute, the amount of money the county council will be able to contribute, the state of the finances of the receiving authority, and so on. All these things have to be taken into consideration before the Minister decides how much he ought to give to any particular scheme. When all these factors have been taken into consideration, the Minister will assess the burden that is going to fall on a receiving district and how much he can give. When he assesses this burden he can take account of expenditure on the acquisition of land for playing fields under Clause 2 (2) (b) of the Bill.
LORD SILKIN: if that is the case, would the noble Lord say what is the objection to saying so in terms?
LORD LLOYD: The objection to this Amendment, I am advised, is a legal objection.
LORD SILKIN: Oh!
LORD LLOYD: If the noble Lord will listen to what the objection is before he starts making disapproving noises I think we shall get on faster. The legal objection, I am advised, is that these words would tend to throw doubt on the generality of the words "public services and other incidentals needed." As the noble Lord, who has been much concerned with these matters, knows, if you particularise some particular activity you may well in legal drafting, throw doubt on various other activities. In this case, I am advised, if you particularise playing fields, you will tend to throw doubt on other necessary things, such as churches, parks libraries and community centres—to give a few examples. Therefore I do not think that I can accept the Amendment. I am prepared to give the noble Lord an assurance that we are concerned about this matter; we shall do everything possible to see that these things are planned as a whole and that all the necessary amenities are contained in the plans. I hope that perhaps my noble friend may be content with that assurance.
3.46 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am sure we cannot really accept as satisfactory what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has just said. I quite appreciate the

1071
noble Lord's position. Perhaps he will accept the suggestion of Lord Silkin and have another talk with the Minister about this matter. I have found myself in the position of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, on many occasions; I have been told to withstand pressure to accept Amendments. I have been given various reasons, but never have I been given the reason which the noble Lord has now advanced—that there is a legal difficulty because if he has the example of playing fields inserted in the Bill it may prevent the building of churches. I think that that is straining our credulity a little too far. I would ask the noble Lord, if he would, to take this matter back. We in this House have this afternoon been dealing with a Children and Young Persons Bill, and we have been considering how to deal with child delinquency and the victims of it. I would suggest to the noble Lord that, as my noble friend has already said, this Amendment does not commit anyone to anything except the principle. Surely it is far better in this new town development to ensure having adequate playing fields for young persons. Even to-day there is agitation in the heart of this City of Westminster to block up roads and stop traffic passing along them, so that children shall be able to have some reasonable recreation.
Does it not sound common sense, as my noble friend has said, that before this town development gets bogged down, before licensed premises are set up for some future children to hang around, or cinemas are built in which children will be given the sort of mental food which some of the modern cinemas do feed to children, playing fields should be dealt with as a first essential? I do not suggest that they are an essential merely so that we can bring up "little Mo's" or people of that kind who will carry off world championships in the field of sport; but they are at least essential for the health and recreation of future generations. I beg the noble Lord to have another word with the Minister and see whether he cannot give us some better news at the next stage of this Bill.
LORD MIDDLETON: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and his noble friend. I have been concerned with the Playing Fields Association
1072
ever since it was started, and I feel very strongly that this is an Amendment which should be accepted. In my view, it is not only the matter of playing fields which is so important. It has been my experience in cities where I have been concerned with youth organisations that I have continually had to investigate the reasons why boy scout troops and boys' clubs had disappeared. It is most necessary that in new town development some provision should be made for youth organisations to carry out their function, and I hope that the Amendment may be accepted at this stage of the Bill.
LORD LLOYD: I have only a few words to say on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. Neither of us are lawyers, but I was surprised to hear from him that he had never heard of the doctrine of ejusdem generis which I thought would have been as well known to him as it is even to such a non-legally minded person as myself. I really think he need not have lectured me so violently on my lack of desire to see playing fields, having regard to the fact that I had just told him that the Government were particularly keen on this matter. Indeed, I think there is very little on the matter of principle which divides us. Finally, I would say that I am always susceptible to the noble Lord's blandishments; and in view of the general desire expressed, I am perfectly prepared to have another look at this matter. As he knows, I can give no promise, but I am prepared to take it back to see whether we can meet this point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord.
LORD HAMPTON: I also should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, for what he has just said—that he will take it back to the Minister and think again. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I could not quite swallow the excuse about the legal difficulty. Surely an open space or playing field cannot be put on the same plane as a new building for any purpose whatsoever. It is one of those things that are essential, and when new towns are springing up this is the time of times, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, when we should be thinking of developing them properly under modern conditions. On

1073
the assurance which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has given, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Exchequer contributions to council of receiving district]:
Exchequer contributions to council of receiving district
2.—(1) This section applies to development to be carried out after the passing of this Act as to which the Minister of Housing and Local Government (hereinafter referred to as "the Minister") is satisfied—
(b) that the provision of the accommodation will relieve congestion or over-population in—

(i) a county borough, or

(iv) a county district outside the county in which the development is to be carried out,

or in two or more such local government areas.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), to add to sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph (b):
"or where the Minister is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, a county district inside such county "
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to provide for exceptional circumstances. In the normal case, where a district council desire to disperse their surplus population and get the benefit of this Bill, they have to disperse it outside their own county. There may be exceptional circumstances which make it desirable and convenient, indeed, essential, to disperse it within the county. An example which I gave on Second Reading was Ilford. I hold no brief for Ilford; I have not been approached by them; but Ilford happens to be a good example of what I mean. Ilford is a congested area, and if they disperse their surplus population, they can do it only in the county of Essex, a considerable distance away. It seems to me that that is the kind of case which the Minister might be prepared to treat as exceptional, so as to give Ilford and the receiving authority in the county access to the benefits of this Bill. It would be entirely in the Minister's discretion and he would have to be satisfied that it was exceptional. There would be no fear of a wholesale introduction of large-scale
1074
extensions of the provisions of the Bill. There may be half a dozen cases throughout the country, but where such cases do exist, I think it is important that they should be met. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, after ("out") insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD LLOYD: The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has stated his first proposition correctly. In the normal case, the county borough or district council which wishes to export its surplus population has to do it outside the boundary of the county. That was the situation when the Bill was first introduced, but I think the noble Lord is under a slight misapprehension when he cites the case of Ilford
LORD SILKIN: I realise that the Ilford case is met because it is on the outskirts of London, but I had that sort of case in mind.
LORD LLOYD: The Ilford case was met in Committee in another place. Strong representations were made about Ilford and, as the noble Lord knows, there is provision in Clause 2 of the Bill which covers the Ilford case and all other cases where the district is part of a large conurbation—to use another awful phrase. I think the point is satisfactorily covered. If the noble Loud wishes to include in the provisions of the Bill any district council that may wish to export population within the county, then I am afraid I must resist his Amendment. In our opinion, that would widen the scope of the Bill in a way which we never intended. The object of the Bill is to assist built-up areas with enormous surplus populations to export them to new towns. That is a matter of national concern, and we believe it should have national financial assistance. But when a small district wishes to export its population for some reason, perhaps because the planning authority thinks it should not expand further, that is only a local affair, which does not come within the main purview of this measure. That is not the problem we are tying to solve. In any case, if a local planning authority decide that any district should not expand in their own area, the district council can obtain a contribution from the county council under existing powers provided in Section 126 of the Local Government Act, which empowers county

1075
councils to contribute to any expense of county districts. We think that they ought to help the district councils and that the problem does not come within the purview of this measure. I am sorry, but I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think the Amendment is of world-shattering importance. I think the noble Lord is wrong, but I do not propose to press this to a Division.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Provision for participation by agreement]:
On Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SILKIN: I should like to say a word about Clause 8 (1) (c). The point I want to make is not on the merits of the clause, because I do not understand what its merits are: the point I want to make is on the drafting. I have spent a good deal of time trying to understand the meaning of subsection (1) (c). Sometimes I think I do understand it, and then, as I go on, I find I do not. Nobody ought to be put in that position. I think I have got the meaning here and, if I have, the idea is so simple that surely it could be put in much simpler words than are here. I am not going to torture the noble Lord by asking him to explain what subsection (1) (c) means. Oh, I see he has a brief! What I ask him is this: Will be please try between now and the next stage to reduce this paragraph to its simplest terms and produce something which even the least intelligent of us can understand?
LORD LLOYD: I must confess that anything on Local Government Bills which the noble Lord, Lord Silk in, does not understand is Greek to me, but I have taken the precaution of finding out what this means, anticipating that the noble Lord might be in difficulty. Neither of us is a lawyer—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: He is.
LORD LLOYD: Then the noble Lord should not try me with the provisions of this subsection. It is his profession which
1076
clothes all these simple things in this horrible language. I will take it back and have a look at the drafting, but I am advised by my legal experts that this is the simplest legal way in which the particular object we desire to achieve here can be expressed.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Provision for participation under order of the Minister
9.—(1) If it appears to the Minister that any action required for the purposes of town development within the meaning of this Act (being action for the taking of which by an authority eligible to participate provision could be made, with the authorisation of the Minister under subsection (1) of the last preceding section if needed, by an agreement to which the council of a receiving district were parties) is prevented or hampered by inability or unwillingness of the council of the receiving district to take that action or to concur in providing by agreement for its being taken, and application in that behalf is made to him by that authority, he may after consultation with the council of the receiving district and the council of the county in which the receiving district is situated make provision by order—

(a) for authorising the authority by whom the application is made to take that action, or to assume any obligation with respect thereto for the assumption of which by them provision could be made as aforesaid, and for requiring the council of the receiving district to permit the taking by that authority of that action;

(b) for imposing on the council of the receiving district any obligation with respect to that action for the assumption of which by them provision could be made as aforesaid, and for conferring on that authority the right to enforce an obligation so imposed as if it had been assumed by the council of the receiving district by agreement with that authority; and

(c) if any agreement with respect to that action has been made by the council of the receiving district with that authority, for varying the terms thereof.

LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words in parentheses, beginning "being action" down to and including "were parties." The noble Lord said: My reason for putting down this Amendment is exactly the same as that for my remarks on Clause 8. I am not sure that I understand this correctly; and, if I do, I can say only that it could be put much more simply. The Amendment proposes the deletion of the words within brackets in Clause 9. I agree that they are a limitation of the powers which are conferred upon the Minister. But

1077
surely, if that is the intention, it could be put much more simply. The words which I am moving to omit are:
"(being action for the taking of which by an authority eligible to participate provision could be made, with the authorisation of the Minister under subsection (1) of the last preceding section if needed, by an agreement to which the council of a receiving district were parties)."
What those words are supposed to mean is, "such an agreement as is contemplated in the previous clause." If that is what it means, why does the Bill not say so? If it means something else, then I cannot make out the words at all. I am moving the Amendment to get the noble Lord opposite to elucidate what the wording means. If he is successful in doing that, I beg of him to take it back to see whether the intention cannot be expressed in simpler language. One day this will have to be interpreted.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 43, leave out after ("Act") to ("is") in line 47.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD LLOYD: I have not been asked to construe so often since I was at school, but again I will endeavour to elucidate for the noble Lord, to the best of my ability. I am advised that what this does, as the noble Lord says, is to limit the power of the Minister. Clause 8 sets forth the fact that authorities may participate in any development of this kind. It then sets forth the sort of things they can do: for example, subsection (1) sets out the kinds of action that one party acting on behalf of another party, in fact, acting as the agent for the receiving area, may take. It authorises
"any action outside their area by a participating council … being action which apart from this subsection they could lawfully take if it were for the benefit of their area but whcih is not, or may not be, for the benefit thereof;".
That, I believe, is quite simple. Clause 8 (1) (c) would take me quite a long time to explain, though I am well fortified. However, I wish to spare the Committee if I can. I will run through the rest of the provisions if the noble Lord wishes, but I feel that they are fairly plain sailing. All Clause 9 (1) does is to say that the Minister may not make an order if people have not done something which is outside its provisions. But if they have failed to do something which they could
1078
do under Clause 8, he is in a position to make an order. That is how I understand it. Clearly, if we did not have the words in the Bill the Minister could make an order for almost any reason at all; his powers would be unlimited. So this Amendment could go impossibly far. I gather that the noble Lord put it down only to torture me. I hope that I have satisfied him and that, in the circumstances, he will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I cannot say that the noble Lord has related the intention of the words to the words that are actually there. I think I understand what is intended, but I cannot make the words of the clause correspond with what is intended. However, I understand that the noble Lord will see whether these words can be elucidated—I agree that some kind of limitation is necessary—and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Contributions to authorities participating from the Exchequer and local authorities benefited
(3) Where the council of a county borough or county district are satisfied that the provision of accommodation by my town development within the meaning of this Act will relieve congestion or over-population in their area, they may, in pursuance of undertakings in that behalf given by them with the approval of the Minister, make contributions to any authority participating in the development towards expenses incurred by them in relation to the development.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved to add to subsection (3):
"A council, when giving an undertaking under this subsection, may lay down, as conditions to which payment of the contributions undertaken to be made is to be subject, such conditions as it may appear to that council to be expedient to impose for securing the intended relief from congestion or overpopulation."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on an Amendment carried out in another place to Clause 4, which now appears as subsection (2) of the clause. That Amendment made it clear, if that was necessary, that a local authority contributing to the expenses of the council of a receiving district could attach to its payments conditions Of the

1079
type mentioned in subsection (2). All this Amendment seeks to do is to give a parallel opportunity to contributions which a participating authority may make to another authority in town development. To give an example, suppose that the Manchester Corporation were themselves carrying out a development at Leyland, and that Salford wished to participate in it—letting Manchester do the work—and wished to house some of their population at Leyland as well, but that Manchester did the work for both. This Amendment enables Salford not only to contribute to Manchester's expenses but also to make conditions in respect of their contributions, even though they are not doing the work—one condition might be that they should have so many houses of those being built at Leyland, or something of that sort. This Amendment is on all fours with the Amendment made in the other place and, as I say, it is almost consequential upon it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 39, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Re-transfers of land, and other adjustments, after carrying out of town development
(4) Subject to subsection (2) of section nine-seen of this Act, no order shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
4.8 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved to leave out subsection (4) and to insert:
"(4) An order under this section shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure."
The noble Lord said: This is a matter of procedure and machinery, and not of principle, but it is one which has been taken seriously into consideration by the local authorities and their representatives. I put it forward from their point of view with a good deal of confidence that it will be the means of saving expense, elaboration and time in carrying out the procedure under the Bill. Clause 13 is the tidying-up clause, under which, after the county borough, for instance, has completed
1080
the development in, say, the area of a county district, the Minister comes in and makes an order adjusting matters as between the two authorities, probably by transferring the property in the new development to the authority which will administer it, which will be the county district. That is merely an illustration. In any event, this tidying-up order will necessitate the investigation of boundaries, sites and financial compensation, and possibly other subsidiary matters, such as title, and so on. In other words, it will not be a simple order, but will contain a good deal of detail.
Under the present provisions of the Bill, all that is provided for is the submission of such an order to Parliament for approval or rejection—the more general procedure. That is a valuable safeguard, and we should value it very much. But experienced administrators of local authorities venture to suggest that what is wanted is something more, and that is an opportunity of holding an inquiry (if it is thought necessary) and taking evidence before the order is made. That is the whole point of this Amendment: to give the parties interested—the Ministry and the two local authorities—an opportunity, if it will be useful, to hold an inquiry and take evidence which will enable them to adjust these difficult matters in detail (ownership, compensation, title, and so forth) before the order is made. The representatives of the local authorities feel confident that that will be of the greatest value and assist them to get the things through quickly, cheaply and without undue contention. Perhaps I may assure the Minister that this matter has been considered very closely in detail by the local authorities and is put forward by them, with, I think, complete unanimity, through their representative associations. I have informed myself of the opinion of the association most concerned, and I venture to support it as a practical matter which may save a little trouble in the future. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 40, leave out subsection (4) and insert ("(4) An order made under this section shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure.").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD SILKIN: Could the noble Lord explain why he regards it as important to have this procedure for Clause 13 and not

1081
for Clause 9, where the Minister is over-riding the views of the local authority? I should have thought that that was much more relevant.
LORD KENNET: The answer to the noble Lord must be that the clause deals with a different subject matter. One likes to confine one's suggestions for changes in a useful Bill to the minimum of what one thinks is most necessary. The answer would be that it is thought that the corpus of cases in which this procedure would be most useful and necessary would be those raised under Clause 13.
LORD LLOYD: So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, we recognise the doubts which exist in the minds of local authorities about this question of re-transfer of development to the authority who is finally to administer it. One answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is that the amount involved in Clause 13 is considerably more than in Clause 9. In Clause 9 we have only the receiving authority with no burden placed upon it, as no development has yet begun. In Clause 13 we have the handing over for a consideration of what may be a considerable development, involving a great deal of money, and clearly it is desirable that too heavy a burden should not be imposed. Equally, one wants to ensure that there is not an unjust price awarded to the developing authority who perhaps have spent a great deal of money. My right honourable friend was of the opinion that the ordinary affirmative procedure would have been enough to cover all these cases, but if local authorities feel strongly on this particular point, I have his authority to accept this Amendment and we shall be pleased to do so if it sets any doubts at rest.
LORD KENNET: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I can assure him that it has the unanimous support of the local authorities, as a matter of substantial practical importance, and that it will receive the warmest welcome by them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15. [Continuation of sewage disposal or sewerage systems]:
4.15 p.m.
LORD KENNET: This Amendment and the next in my name are both put down by me in the hope that they will receive the agreement which has been accorded to the other Amendment. These Amendments are consequential upon the first Amendment, and the whole effect is to produce a re-arrangement of the Bill consequent upon the change just made in Clause 13, in order that the Bill may read more clearly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 45, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Where the Minister is of opinion that an order should be made—

(a) under section six of the Public Health Act, 1936, by virtue of paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection, or

(b) under section nine of that Act amending or revoking such an order as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection, or,

(c) under paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection.

he shall give notice of that opinion to all authorities appearing to him to be concerned, setting out a provisional draft of an order and stating a period, not less than twenty-eight days, within which objections may be made and if either no objection is made by any such authority within the time stated in the notice or all objections so made are withdrawn, the order may be made in the terms of the provisional draft, or with such modifications only as appear to the Minister to be immaterial, but an order shall not be made in any other case unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament")—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD LLOYD: The noble Lord is perfectly correct. This Amendment is consequential on our acceptance of his last Amendment, and I am it very pleased to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Repeal of s. 19 (5) of Town and Country Planning Act, 1944]:
4.17 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN had giver notice of an Amendment to omit Clause 18. The noble Lord said: The Amendment which is standing in my name is to leave out Clause 18. I observe, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has a similar

1083
Amendment on the Marshalled List. The object of my Amendment was to leave the clause out of the Bill altogether. The object of the noble Lord's Amendment is to leave it out and to put another even more obnoxious clause in its place. This raises a question of major policy, and if it were to be debated in a serious way, and in the way in which I think it should be debated, it would take a considerable time, but there is a good deal of business on the Order Paper to-day, and I am sure that noble Lords would welcome any effort to save time this afternoon. I feel, therefore, that it might be advisable not to move my own Amendment, but to let the noble Lord's Amendment go through, with the understanding that I shall move my Amendment to delete the new clause on a further stage of this Bill. If that is acceptable to the noble Lord, I shall be prepared not to move my Amendment at all to-day, but to put down an Amendment to delete the new Clause 18 on the further stage.
LORD LLOYD: I am perfectly prepared to agree with the noble Lord, if that suits him.
LORD SILKIN: I thought it might suit the House. It would suit me to move it now.
LORD LLOYD: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I will move my new clause, and we can have a debate on it next time.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved to leave out Clause 18 and insert the following new clause:
Repeal of restrictions on disposal of land by local authorities and development corporations
"18. So much of section nineteen of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and of section five of the New Towns Act, 1946, as restrict the power of the Minister under those sections to consent to the disposal of land by a local authority or development corporation shall cease to have effect and, accordingly, the enactments specified in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in relation thereto in the third column of that Schedule."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment arises out of an error which occurred through the original clause not going far enough. It was intended to repeal part of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. Unfortunately, it went the whole way through the House of Commons and through the Second Reading in your
1084
Lordships' House before anyone noticed that we had failed to repeal the reenactment of the same piece of legislation in the Eleventh Schedule of the 1947 Act. It was, therefore, necessary to delete the original Clause 18 in the Bill for that purpose, if for no other; and, since we are doing that, we should at the same time insert the provision of which I gave notice on the Second Reading—the provision to repeal part of the New Towns Act of 1946. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I will confine my remarks to a minimum. I will merely say that these two Amendments remove a limitation on the Minister's power to give permission to local authorities either to sell their houses or to make leases of more than ninety-nine years. I do not think that at this stage I need say any more about it—we shall be debating the matter more fully on the Report stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 18 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lloyd.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The Question is, That the Amendment be agreed to, subject to the insertion of "1944" in place of "1947" as printed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, after Clause 18 to insert the following new clause:
". The Council of a receiving district shall, before carrying out any development under this Act, consult with the councils of such of the parishes in its area as will be affected by such development as to the manner in which the development is to be carried out."
The noble Lord said: I must say that when I had finished drafting this Amendment I was astonished at its modesty. It is asking a very small thing indeed: that before development takes place in a parish the council of that parish should be consulted as to the manner in which the development is to take place. The Amendment does not require the permission of the parish council. It cannot hold up the development unless there is agreement. All it says is—and this is surely a very small thing—that the parish council must be consulted. I take it that it is part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage the ordinary form of democratic local government as applied to parish councils. It must be a discouragement to parish councils if development on any scale takes place in

1085
their own area without their being consulted at all. On the other side of the picture, surely there must be occasions when the parish council could contribute something really useful, in the words of this Amendment:
"as to the manner in which the development is to be carried out"—
not whether a house shall be built but, perhaps, where it might be built; something as to the siting and elevation, and the material. When all is said and done, there is no compulsion on anybody to accept the decision of the parish council or to do more than merely consult them. That being so, I submit that this Amendment is inherently reasonable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 18 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD LLOYD: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord would like to do. We do not want to see local authorities overridden. At the same time I think the Amendment, if accepted, would introduce a new principle into local government. Obviously we desire that local people should assent to what is being clone. After all, the rural district councils are elected on a parochial basis, and often a member of the rural district council is a member of the parish council. I think we must assume that the district council has an access to the views of the parish council. It must do so, in fact, because its representatives, as I say, are elected on lint basis. We must also assume, therefore, that it will take their interests into consideration. I do not think we should introduce such an entirely new principle into local government; I think it would be wrong to do so. While, therefore, we have every sympathy with what the noble Lord desires to do, I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD MIDDLETON: I am sorry that the noble Lord cannot accept this Amendment. I have been a district councillor for over twenty years, and also a parish councillor. Sometimes I have found myself unable to attend the district council meetings at the right time because of lack of transport. I remember a case where it was decided by the district council that cottages should be built at a certain place. If the parish councillor had been there he would have been able
1086
to point out that every few years a certain spring came to the surface and made that place impossible for building. I think the Amendment extremely reasonable and I wish the noble Lord could accept it.
LORD MERTHYR: I should like to make one or two observations upon what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said. I submit that there is room for new principles in local government. The noble Lord suggested that district councils were in some way elected by the parish councils. He seemed to be under the. impression that members of district councils were also members of parish councils.
LORD LLOYD: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I think he misunderstood me. I did not say that the district councils were elected by the parish council members. I said that on occasions the district councillors were also members of the parish council.
LORD MERTHYR: I gladly withdraw my interpretation of the noble Lord's remarks. Of course, it may be that a district councillor does not live in his own parish or in the parish he represents. He may live in neither place; he is not bound to live in either place. This new principle to which the noble Lord is objecting might be a very good principle, and I would ask him whether he will kindly consider this matter again, for the reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Provisions as to orders under this Act]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET had given notice of an Amendment to omit subsection (2).
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that this Amendment was consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 38, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved after Clause 23 to insert the following Schedule:

"SCHEDULE

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

7 & 8 Geo. 6. c. 47.

The Town and Country Planning Act, 1944.

Subsection (5) of section nineteen.

9 & 10 Geo. 6. c. 68.

The New Towns Act, 1946.

In section five, in the proviso to subsection (1), the words from "and the Minister shall not consent" to the end of the proviso.

10 & 11 Geo. 6. c. 51.

The Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.

Subsection (5) of section nineteen of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, as reprinted in the Eleventh Schedule."

The noble Lord said: In rising to move the insertion of the Schedule which your Lordships will see on the Order Paper, I need say no more than that it is consequential on the Amendment we made to Clause 18. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 23 insert the said Schedule.—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLOYD: This Amendment also is consequential on the Amendment we made to Clause 18. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, at end insert ("and part of subsection (1) of section five of the New Towns Act, 1946.").—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House resumed.

DEFAMATION BILL
4.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Defamation Bill. It is a measure which was introduced into another place by a private Member, Mr. Lever. It has received full consideration in Committee, and afterwards, as well as a Second
1088
Reading in another place. It now comes before this House in the hope, and I think in the expectation, that by a united effort we may carry it into law. In other circumstances, I think it would have been proper, in moving the Second Reading to speak at some length and in some detail on the general subject and contents of the Bill, and I must still refer to some of the principal matters in the Bill. But I think it will be for the general convenience of the House if I limit what I have to say now to the minimum which is proper; and other noble Lords, no doubt, will also want to take part in the Second Reading debate. It must be recognised that this is a very important Bill, of wide application, and that on more than one point questions may reasonably arise on which a difference of opinion is possible, with the result that, when we come to Committee, we shall have to discuss some of these clauses with a good deal of elaboration and care. I shall not do any injustice to the importance of the subject if I now make a statement which is briefer than I should otherwise make, in view of the obvious desire of the House in due course to get on with what remains of the Business on the Paper to-day.
It is thirteen years ago since the then Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham, appointed the Committee on the Law of Defamation, the Report of which I hold in my hand. It may be convenient to say that it is Command Paper 7536, of the year 1948. The Committee is known, I think, as Lord Porter's Committee, with a very distinguished list of persons who accepted the duty of carrying through the inquiry. It was headed by Lord Porter, who has taken a large part in drawing up the Report. It included, for example, Lord Justice Birkett; it included another who is now a High Court Judge, Mr. Justice Slade; and it included others with special knowledge of this subject, such as Sir Valentine Holmes. It included other members who might specially appreciate the importance of this subject in connection with writing articles and editing and producing newspapers. It included, also, some others who would take a general view of the importance of the subject. As I have said it was thirteen years ago that these men were appointed, and the Committee lost no time in beginning their work. But the war came, and

1089
much of the work of the Committee was inevitably postponed.
When the war was over, the Committee resumed their work and took a very large body of evidence and, manifestly, discussed those different points very closely. The Report to which I have just referred was made in the year 1948, nearly five years ago, and, as I have said, it is available as a Parliamentary Paper. Nothing has been done. I do not think it was disputed by anybody that some reforms in the English and Scottish law of defamation were important, and there was a considerable measure of agreement as to what these reforms should be. When the Committee had finished their deliberations and drew up their Report, they were able to deal with a great number of these subjects and, in almost every case, their conclusion is a unanimous conclusion. Where there is any difference, it is a difference which is represented by the contrasted view of one or two members. And yet, so far, nothing has been done to implement the Report. Here, in this Bill, comes the opportunity which Parliament now has—and there is time to do it—of carrying through what undoubtedly would be a very important and useful reform of the law. I am not saying that the Bill contains every change which some people would think wise, but if it is carried into law, it will effect some extremely important improvements in the law, and I think it will be the general feeling that it is very important to get the Bill on to the Statute Book.
I will mention three or four of the most important matters which are dealt with in this Bill, and make a short reference to the Report of Lord Porter's Committee on the subject at the same time. If your Lordships have a copy of the Bill in your hands, you will see that in the first clause there is provision as to broadcast statements. A good deal of difficulty has arisen during recent years in deciding whether or not broadcast statements are to be classed as libels or as slanders. In most cases, I think people who broadcast have a written text; but, of course, the noise that comes out is the noise of the voice. The broadcast is heard by the ear and one might, therefore, regard it perhaps as a communication which is made just for the moment and then passes into oblivion, as distinguished from something which is regarded as permanent and,
1090
therefore, of a more serious character. I refer now to page 13 of the Committee's Report, where it is pointed out, I think very justly, that:
"A defamatory statement transmitted over the radio in a broadcast, reaching, as it may, an audience of many millions, is calculated to cause as much, if not more, damage than a written report in a newspaper however large its circulation."
Accordingly, in the first clause of this Bill, following the recommendations of the Porter Committee, the provision is that:
"For the purposes of the law of libel and slander, the broadcasting of words by means of wireless telegraphy shall be treated as publication in permanent form."
That is the same as saying that it is to be regarded as a libel rather than as a slander. I may point out that Clause 16, near the end of the Bill, makes it clear that what is said in this first clause does not apply to short-wave messages—such, for example, as are sent out from time to time by police cars and the like. It refers to broadcasting and, no doubt, to television, which we owe to a central authority. That is Clause 1.
Clause 2 is, again, a clause of great importance. It is one of the clauses in which the distinction between slander and libel may be of some importance. I think there are authorities who take the view that we ought to assimilate the law of libel and the law of slander. I will not enter upon discussion of that point now, except to say that I know there is such an argument and in due course we shall have to consider and weigh it. Throughout the Bill, the broad distinction between slander and libel is maintained—the distinction, broadly speaking, being that libel is a defamatory statement in some fairly permanent form, like a written statement, whereas slander is a libellous statement which does not possess that permanent character, because it is merely spoken. The reason for Clause 2 is this. It is an important branch of the law of slander that, whereas a man may complain of defamatory words which are spoken of him in the way of his office, profession, or trade, and which naturally tend to injure his reputation in that office, profession or trade, he cannot bring an action and cannot recover damages, even though the words spoken were defamatory of him, unless it be a statement made about him in the way of his office. For example, a teacher would certainly be

1091
entitled to bring an action if someone said of him that he was an ignorant person, not fit to teach. But if somebody said of him that he was a person who when on holiday, was of immoral life that in itself would not give the teacher a right of action.
That situation is plainly wrong, and the Committee deals with it very usefully at page 14, pointing out that as a matter of fact, words like those would be extremely harmful to the man's reputation in his calling, even though they are not spoken of him in the way of his calling. In that I should think everybody would agree. Therefore, the Committee provide that by this clause we should amend the present law and abolish the requirement that in such cases the spoken defamatory words must be actually spoken of the plaintiff in the way of his calling; and that, instead, there should be provided, as will be seen in Clause 2, that even though the words are not spoken of him in the way of his calling, if they are calculated to disparage him in his calling, then the conditions are satisfied which will enable an action to be brought. I do not feel any doubt that, assuming that we maintain the broad distinction between slander and libel, your Lordships will accept that recommendation.
I will not delay your Lordships in regard to Clause 3, beyond saying that the matter is dealt with carefully in paragraph 54 of the Report of the Porter Committee, on page 15; and anyone who cares to read it will there see a very clear justification for Clause 3. I think people are sometimes a little in doubt as to what is meant when one says that in certain slander actions the plaintiff must prove "special damage," whereas if the complaint is one of libel special damage need not be proved. I think I speak correctly when I say that the requirement of special damage means that the plaintiff must prove actual pecuniary loss which directly results from the defamation of which he complains. Broadly speaking, that is true of slander, though it is not true of libel.
Then, my Lords, in Clause 4 we come to what is both a complicated and an interesting matter. The side note describes it as "unintentional defamation." That is the language which is used on page 16 of the Porter Committee Report.
1092
This is a problem which has puzzled not only lawyers but, I think, other people too, such as journalists and writers, for years. A man writes a story in which he has to give his character a name. He does his best to select a name which will not fit anybody—perhaps he invents a name—and in the story his character is not a very desirable one. Then it turns out that, after all, there is somebody who has exactly that name, and, what is more, somebody who can produce a witness who will say that when he read the story he really thought it referred to the gentleman in question. It sounds farfetched but that does sometimes happen, and there is no doubt at all that our law (and I think rightly) does not inquire into what was the intention of the writer. what was in his mind, but asks the objective question: is it the fact that these words about this person with such-and-such a name, having been published, the words really have been regarded, and reasonably regarded, by those who knew him, as referring to the plaintiff?
For example, there was a famous case which mentioned the name of Artemus Jones, and the writer of an amusing sketch imagined, I believe, that when he wrote about Artemus Jones he was using an imaginary name for the purpose of his story, without the smallest idea of referring to any known, existing person at all. At any rate that is what he said. But this is what he wrote in his description of a fictitious character who was enjoying a holiday abroad and, according to the story, not behaving strictly as he did at home—in fact, in the story he was a churchwarden:
"Whist! There is Artemus Jones with a woman who is not his wife, who must be, you know, the other thing."
Thereupon a gentleman whose name was Artemus Jones issued a writ for libel. He called somebody who knew him very well (I think it was his father), to testify that when he read these words he thought they referred to the plaintiff—and the gentleman got very heavy damages. Well, the proposal is that the strictness of the law in this respect should be altered. A still more remarkable case perhaps is another which is to be found in the books, which concerned a man whose name was Harry Newstead, who lived in Camber-well, of whom somebody wrote:
"Harold Newstead, thirty years old Camberwell man, who was jailed for nine months, liked having two wives at a time."

1093
That might have been all right about one person named Harold Newstead, but it certainly was not right about another person named Harold Newstead. They both lived in Camberwell, and the latter person brought an action and got damages. He said that he was accused of bigamy, whereas he was not a bigamist at all.
Well, something has to be done, and Clause 4 of this Bill deals with this un-intentional defamation. It provides, in substance, that if a person has published defamatory matter quite innocently, not meaning to defame another person, and then finds that there is a claim against him alleging that he has damaged the other person, he can make an offer of amends, by a suitable statement that will relieve the feelings of the party aggrieved. I need not read the details to your Lordships, but if he does that, and does it promptly, he is not to be held liable in damages. I should have thought that that was a reasonable compromise. It is discussed with very great care and fullness in the Porter Report, at pages 16 and 17. Practical justice, which is what we are all after, will be done if the person alleging he has been wronged gets a retraction or explanation, suitably published, without hitting the innocent libeller, if we may call him such, in pecuniary damages.
Then, my Lords, there follows a clause, again of much importance, to which I must call attention as I go along, headed "Justification." I expect your Lordships know what lawyers mean by "justification." This Bill deals with civil defamation, and not with criminal libel. As your Lordships know, in any action brought for damages or defamation because the statement of which the plaintiff complains is an injurious one, it is a complete answer to say, "You may complain as much as you like, but what I have said is true." It rests, of course, on the defendant to prove that the statement is true, but if he can do so, then no damages can be recovered. I think some people have had doubts as to whether that is an altogether wise law, but at any rate I should regard it as much too fundamental a principle to be changed. It has been the law of this country for a very long time.
I recall having read some years ago a most admirable biography of Sir Frank
1094
Lockwood, written by his friend, Mr. Augustine Birrell. In that book Mr. Birrell records the fact that Sir Frank Lockwood frequently appeared for a publication which used to be conducted by Mr. Labouchere and which still survives, though with a rather different content—a periodical called Truth. Mr. Labouchere, in those days, took infinite trouble to collect all the necessary material to justify some frightful libel which he thought fit to publish in his paper; and Sir Frank Lockwood used to appear for him and, in due course, prove that what was said was true. Mr. Birrell referred to Mr. Labouchere, in that book as "that bold and judicious libeller, who deserved well of the Common Law Bar."
The only modification this Bill seeks to make on the subject of justification is in Clause 5. The reason for it is to be found on page 20 of the Porter Report. It is that truth is a perfectly good defence, if you prove it, to any action for defamation. But there may be cases in which you are unable to prove the truth of every single item of what you have said. In such circumstances, if, as a matter of fact, you have proved the truth of all that matters, and the only thing that remains is some little matter which is not justified, then under Clause 5 the defence of justification does not fail by reason only of the fact that the truth of every charge is not proved—provided that the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff's reputation, having regard to the truth of the remaining charges. If, for instance, you said of a man, whom otherwise you were justified as exposing as a rogue, that he had been sentenced to five years' imprisonment, whereas he had been sentenced to only three years' imprisonment, it would certainly seem unreasonable that he should get damages just because you made that small mistake.
Clause 6 deals with a matter which we must consider in more detail later—that of fair comment. It is a difficult subject both for lawyers and for laymen. It is fully discussed in the Report, on pages 21 and 22.
When we get to Clause 7 we are in a still more difficult territory, the law of defamation in connection with what is published in a newspaper. The principal Act on that subject, I think, on our

1095
Statute Book, is the Law of Libel (Amendment) Act of 1888. It contains elaborate provisions which, in some cases, protect honest reports contained in newspapers of proceedings which none the less may involve libellous matter. But I will not go into it now. Clauses 7, 8 and 9, I think, cover the topic, and I hope will be found to cover it admirably. Clause 10 is a rather special clause which I think was introduced in the House of Commons limiting the privilege of a statement published
"by or on behalf of a candidate in any election to a local government authority or to Parliament. …"
I do not think it is of great importance, and it will be enough for the moment to say that I believe it was largely inspired by a decision which goes by the name of Braddock v. Bevins, reported in 1948, 1 King's Bench Division, at page 580.
I do not think I need delay your Lordships now about the other clauses. I hope that I have said enough to show that this Bill does some very useful things, and that here is an opportunity of making these very useful changes. I very much hope that we shall not miss the opportunity. As I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, it is thirteen years since the then Lord Chancellor realised that it was necessary to examine the law of defamation and consider in what respects it should be changed and improved. And the present Bill, the Defamation Bill, which I have the honour now to present to the House on Second Reading, contains a great many of these reforms, largely in the way recommended by this most authoritative Committee in their Report presented to Parliament five years ago. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Viscount Simon.)
4.56 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, in rising to say what I have to say about this Bill, I want to make it plain that I am speaking for myself alone. There is no Party issue involved in this Bill, and I have no authority to represent the views of anyone else. I am in the happy position of being able to say exactly what I think about this Bill; and that I propose to do. I should like to add one other matter—and
1096
it is this. This House is peculiarly well fitted to take a Bill like this in hand, modify it and transform it into a better measure—if indeed it needs that treatment. I very much hope that the mere fact that we are under some pressure of time will not prevent us from properly fulfilling our function and going very carefully through this Bill. If it should be that pressure of time does prevent us, and if, as a result, the Bill is lost by the end of the present Session, I think that the Government of the day ought to take it in hand and make themselves responsible for reintroducing it.
I say at once that I like this Bill better than nothing, but there are some respects in which I regard it as most disappointing. My dilemma is this: am I or am I not to try to get this Bill improved, as I think, or shall I say: "Oh well, if I try to get it improved, I may lose the Bill altogether. In that case I had better have it as it is." I feel that dilemma. But I also know this. If we pass a Bill now dealing with this topic the chances of another Bill dealing with the same topic being passed in the next twenty or thirty years, are negligible. It was in 1891 that the last substantial measure dealing with libel and slander was passed. It will be another fifty years before we get a chance of another substantial measure. On the whole, I have come to the conclusion that we ought to do the best we can to improve this Bill and make it into a better measure.
Before I go on to indicate the respects in which I consider the Bill defective, I should like to say how greatly we all appreciate the work of Lord Porter and his Committee. The Bill is largely founded on the work of that Committee. For my own part, if the Bill had more closely followed the Report of that Committee I should have liked it much better. There is one important point on which I differ from Lord Porter, or, rather, from Lord Porter and the majority of his Committee. But in the main I accept the conclusions of the Committee, and I am frankly sorry that some of the conclusions to which they came do not find their place in this Bill. Let me briefly give some illustrations. I do it now quite deliberately. I am aware of the fact that we are in a difficulty by reason of another debate which is to come on later. I suggested, indeed, that it might be convenient to postpone consideration of this

1097
Bill in order to allow the other debate to come on. For my own part I should be, and I shall now be, very ready for that to be done. I gather, however, that there are technical difficulties in the way. If they can be got out of the way, I am prepared to allow that to be done. As things are, I think I must make my speech because this is an important matter. I am sorry that the most reverend Primate should have to listen to it—I know how much work he has to do.
The Report of Lord Porter's Committee, at paragraph 160, dealt with the question of damages. They said that this was a class of case in which the Court of Appeal ought to have considerably wider discretion in dealing with damages than in the ordinary case. With that observation of the Committee I find myself in complete agreement, and I feel that it is a pity that there is no provision in this Bill to that effect. At a later stage I shall move an Amendment in order to have this matter discussed.
May I give your Lordships one striking illustration from my own experience? There was a case in which two brothers were travelling in a car and the car came into violent collision with a lorry, the accident being entirely the fault of the lorry driver. The insurance company who, of course, had to pay thought to themselves that they would get off with smaller damages if they made the brother who was the passenger—who suffered a fractured skull—bring his action against the brother who was driving, rather than against the lorry driver. So they organised a system whereby the lorry driver was to deny liability—though he had already been convicted of the criminal offence of dangerous driving—and the brother driving the car should admit liability. Both brothers brought actions—the brother who fractured his skull to recover damages for the injury he had sustained, and the brother driving, who fortunately had escaped with no injury, for libel, because the insurance company had said he was guilty of careless driving. The brother who fractured his skull got £900 and the brother who had been said to be guilty of negligent driving got £1,000. The Court of Appeal felt they could not alter this decision, but one Lord Justice said this:
"I can well imagine the passenger saying to his brother the driver, 'You have all the luck. I had my skull fractured and I only get £900,
1098
but because someone said you fractured it you get £1,000. And it was only said to my solicitors, who would not believe it for a moment'."
The learned Judge goes on:
"In the course of twelve years at nisi prius, I have been struck by the contrast between the frequent niggardliness of verdicts in cases of personal injury and the invariable profuseness in claims for defamation. A soiled reputation seems assured of more liberal assuagement than does a compound fracture."
Anyone with any experience in the courts will know that that is true. That being so, Lord Porter and his Committee made the unanimous recommendation that in this class of case the Court of Appeal should have a wider discretion than in ordinary cases; and, for myself, I regret that that recommendation does not find its place in this Bill.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, who introduced the Bill, dealt with unintentional defamation. I agree with what he said, but I am a little afraid that the clause in the Bill, as crafted, is too narrow to achieve its object One of the main recommendations of the Porter Committee, on which they were unanimous, was that the publisher of that which turned out to be a libel should not be rendered liable by the mere fact that somebody else was guilty of malice. Take the case of a man who writes a letter to, or an article for, a newspaper. He refers to what appears to be an imaginary person, but some real person brings his action. So far as the publisher is concerned, he took all reasonable precautions. He had not the slightest reason to suppose that a real person was being libelled. The writer, however, all the time had at the back of his mind the intention of defaming this man. As the law stands, the publisher of the newspaper is made liable by reason of the malice of the other person, the writer. The Porter Committee, if I understand them aright, said that that was wrong and that in future the publisher should not be liable for malice—except, of course, for his own malice or that of his own servants. But that recommendation finds no place in the Bill.
The Porter Committee left open the question of onus of proof. Is the publisher to prove that he took all reasonable care or is the person libelled to prove that the publisher did not take reasonable care? I do not very much mind, but I have had a great deal of

1099
experience in this subject, and I know how authors writing a book see this matter to-day. An author may take a common name like John Smith and hope, because of the mere fact that the name is common, that that will give him protection, in which case he runs the risk of a large number of John Smiths saying they thought it applies to them. Or he may take a very rare name, such as Marmaduke Pickenthall, in which case, if it turns out that there is such a person, he will say that, quite obviously, he is the person referred to. I remember one case which I had for George Moore, the writer. Afterwards he assured me that in his next book he was going to refer to his characters by numbers! There is a very real problem here.
The Bill provides that the publisher has to prove that not only he but every servant concerned with the publication of what turns out to be a libel has not been guilty of negligence. In the case of the printer, every single printer would have to be called to prove that he was not guilty of negligence before this defence would be available. Moreover, this defence does not apply to any libel where the words are "defamatory on the face of them." If a novelist writes a novel, he cannot make it consist entirely of compliments. He must have some villain in the novel, and that is defamatory on the face of it, though it is not defamatory of any particular person. I think that point wants looking at. We shall have to examine this clause with some care to see whether it is in workable form. The payment of money into court is a thing which has long been an anomaly in this law. In many cases there are three defendants—the writer, the publisher and the printer. They do not always agree on the line they are going to take. One pays money into the court, and the others do not. Why should not that money be paid out and the action abandoned, so far as it concerns the first defendant, but be continued in regard to the other two? That is a recommendation of the Porter Committee but, for some reason that I do not understand, it is not to be found in the Bill.
There is the very difficult question of evidence in mitigation of damages. This is dealt with in paragraph 156 of the Porter Committee's Report. It is the
1100
case that to-day we may find a man who is a real rascal recovering damages on the footing that he is a completely honest man. The Committee say, in paragraph 149:
"Subject to what is said below as to cross-examination to credit, the rule in Scott v. Sampson may operate in practice so as to enable a notorious rogue to recover damages for defamation upon the basis that he is a man of unblemished reputation."
But, of course, if he is called into the box and asked to give evidence, he can be cross-examined on credibility. The practice is—and I have followed it myself on more than one occasion—to call such a man into the box and ask him no questions. If counsel does not ask him any questions, the other side cannot ask him any questions on credibility. Counsel submits him for cross-examination, but all cross-examination is inadmissible because he has given no evidence. This is the sort of case which should be covered. It was considered by the Porter Committee. The useful clause in the Bill is Clause 11, dealing with agreements for indemnity. I myself have never had any doubt that these agreements were legal. But I do not like the phrase at the end of the clause,
"which the person indemnified knows to be defamatory."
My reason for disliking that phrase is that an indemnity may often be required in these circumstances. You may be writing a book, an article or a paragraph about some man or some event, and, if you are honest, you will frequently have to say all sorts of defamatory things. Defamatory they are, but they are also true. It is in just those cases, where you are writing defamatory things about some living person of your knowledge, that you would want to be indemnified if you could get an insurance company to agree. The fact is that you are saying what you are firmly convinced is the truth, and you are prepared to justify it.
I have in my criticism so far indicated some of the points, although not the most important ones. I now come to the question where I differ from the Porter Committee, and I think it right to indicate it briefly, in order that it may be considered, and so that I may put all your Lordships who can bear it in possession of the argument. I have long been of the opinion that the law of libel and the law of slander ought to be assimiliated. I ought

1101
perhaps to disclose this—I will not say, interest, but prejudice. When I was at Oxford I was fortunate enough to be trained in the law by Sir William Holds-worth, the writer of the great and famous book A History of English Law. I learned Holdsworth's view on this matter almost in my first few lectures at Oxford. He records it in Vol. XII of A History of English Law, on page 378, and I should like to read it to your Lordships. It is as follows:
"In the eighteenth century, political developments necessitated important changes in the criminal law; and the division of the tort of defamation into libel and slander—a division due historically to the need of finding some remedy for the mistakes made by the common law in the initial stages of the development of the tort—still disfigures the law. But the definition of the tort of libel was on the whole satisfactory; and it has formed a good starting point for the development of, and a sufficient framework for, the many detailed rules which the modern expansion of literature and journalism has necessitated. If the rules applicable to libel were applied to all kinds of defamation, and the fact that the defamation was oral was only allowed to weigh in considering the measure of damages, no serious complaint could be made against our modern law."
I have not attempted to lobby or get any opinion on this matter, save this. I have asked Sir Percy Winfield, who, as your Lordships know, is the author of a great book on the law of tort, for his opinion. He has authorised me to say that he thinks the tine has now come to abolish the distinction between libel and slander. I have also asked Professor Goodhart of Oxford, and he, too, thinks that the distinction should be abolished. He feels that there is little danger that the number of slander actions would increase. I have not gone further than that, but I am fairly satisfied from casual conversations that the overwhelming weight of academic lawyers to-day would be in favour of abolishing the distinction.
Still, the law has remained like this for several centuries, and if your Lordships want to realise what the law is, you will find it stated conveniently in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the Report of the Porter Committee. Broadly speaking, for a slander—that is to say, something spoken, which you hear with the ear—you cannot bring an action, save in specified cases, unless you have sustained pecuniary damage. In paragraph 34 it is well stated in this way:
1102
"It is, in practice, difficult to prove special damage in any action for defamation. A man's reputation as a private individual or in the way of his calling may have suffered grievous harm without its being possible to prove any direct pecuniary loss. His friends may shun him, his professional earnings or his business takings may decrease. But loss of such society does not amount to special damage within the eyes of the law."
The exceptions indicated by the Porter Committee were three originally. The first was:
"Words imputing a crime. …"
There is in the books a whole mass of legal decisions about this matter. It must be a crime which can be punished with imprisonment. Thus, to say that a man behaved himself in a disorderly manner in a hotel and had to be turned off the premises is not actionable, the punishment for that being a fine. To charge a churchwarden with stealing the parish bell-ropes is not actionable, as he had possession of them in his capacity as churchwarden. To charge a trustee of a school with having embezzled £25 of the school money is not actionable, as the plaintiff, being a trustee, could not embezzle money which his duty as trustee did not require him to receive. What a farago of nonsense all that is! Would it not be far better to get rid of it altogether? I should add that words imputing a. mere suspicion of a crime are not actionable; to say of a man that the police strongly suspect that he is guilty of a murder, and have him under observation, is not actionable.
The second exception mentioned by the Porter Committee is:
"Words imputing … contagious or infectious diseases."
Just think of that. To say that a man has leprosy, scarlet fever or, obviously, venereal disease, is actionable without proof of special damage. But to say that he has delirium tremens, that he is insane, or that he is suffering from softening of the brain, cancer or consumption, is not actionable. All these are the ideas of two hundred years ago and, to my mind, it is appalling that they should clutter up our text books, and that our students should be made to learn them.
The third exception mentioned is words spoken in relation to professional business. Thus, to say of a clergyman that he committed adultery is actionable per se, without proof of special damage, if he holds a benefice. If he does not, then

1103
you have to show special damage. But to say the same thing of a physician may be quite safe, unless he can show special damage. You can say it of a schoolmaster. Indeed, when this House in its judicial capacity came to consider this matter, it said that it would be an extension of the law to hold that an imputation of morality against a man in his personal capacity was actionable per se if he were engaged in any profession or occupation in which a good moral character was especially requirable. The majority of the Porter Committee seemed to agree, but Mr. O'Sullivan and Professor Wade dissented on this.
I remember the case of the headmaster of a famous public school who had retired from the school owing to illness. He came back after about a year, and found that there was a rumour going about that he had misconducted himself with some woman of the town, and all sorts of details were given. It was wholly untrue. It was most damaging to this man. He came to me and asked my advice about bringing an action. I told him: "You can do absolutely nothing. Even if you were still headmaster of the school you could do nothing. If you retired and these people said that the real reason for your retirement was that you were 'kicked out' by the council for your bad behaviour, you could do nothing." Is that right or is that just? I submit that the time has come when this thing ought to be altered.
Lawyers are often accused of preventing all reforms. This very matter was the subject of a Select Committee of this House in the year 1843–109 years ago. There was a Committee of eighteen members, and the lawyers were as follows: Lyndhurst, who was Lord Chancellor, Brougham, Denman, Abinger, Cottenham, Langdale and Campbell. Anybody who knows the history of those times will think it absolutely amazing that Lyndhurst, Brougham, Campbell and Cottenham can have agreed on any single proposition. But they did. They made a report, and this is what they said in it:
"At present, while for any words reduced into writing which in any way tend to injure reputation, though communicated to only one individual, the law gives a remedy—there is no remedy, without proof of special damage, for mere words, however injurious to
1104
reputation, and however publicly spoken, unless they impute an indictable offence, or apply to a man in his business, or import that he is labouring under an infectious disease: so that"—
this was the law then—
"falsely and maliciously to impute in the coarsest terms and on the most public occasion, want of chastity to a woman of high station and unspotted character, or want of veracity or courage to a gentleman of undoubted honesty and honour, cannot be made the foundation of any proceeding, civil or criminal; whereas an action may be maintained for saying that a cobbler is not skilful in mending shoes."
They reported that the distinction between libel and slander did not rest on any solid foundation,
"and that whenever an Injury is done to Character by Defamation there ought to be Redress by Action."
I believe everybody would be in favour of that, were it not for this trouble—and this is what is always trotted out. It is said: "If you allow people to bring actions for slander, you may get many frivolous actions; you may get a large number of actions about trivial complaints," and so on. That argument has been raised many times, and was used in particular in the case to which I now come—the Slander of Women Bill. In 1891, another lawyer—a very distinguished one, Lord Nacnaghten—introduced a Bill into this House. He described the existing law as a reproach to the administration of justice, and he said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 354, col. 1705]:
"Loss of reputation, loss of friends, loss of health, exclusion from society are not regarded, and a woman who is assailed by an attack on her chastity by spoken words, however gross the slander may be, cannot appeal to the law to vindicate her character unless she can prove that she has sustained some pecuniary damage, or some loss of that kind. As regards written words the law is different. In that case an action is maintainable without proof of special damage. Eminent judges have over and over again found fault with this state of the law, and in this House, sitting in its judicial capacity, it has been described as unsatisfactory, and it has been denounced as barbarous."
Lord Halsbury, who at that time occupied the Woolsack, said this [Col. 1706]:
"I must say when the Bill gets into Committee, I shall endeavour to place upon its passing and coming into operation such restrictions as to costs and otherwise as will diminish what appears to me to be the serious danger which would result from opening a new field of litigation upon this subject of words spoken."

1105
The Lord Chancellor of the day was answered. Lord Bramwell said this [Col. 1707]:
"I suppose, whenever you allow an action to be brought for anything, you open up a possibility of vexatious proceedings, and the only way for your Lordships to stop vexatious proceedings to a certainty is to stop all actions whatever, because as long as any are allowed there is a chance of vexatious actions being brought."
The noble Lord added this:
"I do not, for my own part, apprehend that there will be any unreasonable or undue quantity of vexatious actions in consequence of this proposal of my noble and learned friend."
He then quoted Chief Justice Holt, who said that whenever, words tended to take away a man's reputation he would encourage actions for them. Lord Selborne added [Col. 1709]:
"The law in regard to this particular class of case has always appeared to me to be a reproach to us."
So the Act was passed. Words spoken and published after the passing of the Act which impute unchastity or adultery to any woman or girl do not require special damage, and the Act contained this useful proviso, which I should be very well prepared to have applied here:
"Provided always, that in any action for words spoken and made actionable by this Act, a plaintiff shall not recover more costs than damages, unless the judge shall certify that there was a reasonable ground for bringing the action."
What has our experience been? Have Lord Halsbury's fears been proved to be right or not? I think everybody will agree that the fear of there being a large number of vexatious actions by these women has proved to be wholly wrong. There is more than that—and this, unfortunately, was not noticed in the Committee's Report. Other countries have adopted the same principle. In New South Wales and Queensland in Australia, the law of libel and of slander has now been assimilated and I am informed—I have made special inquiries—that all the lawyers out there are satisfied that slander actions are rare and no more numerous in Queensland and New South Wales than in any other of the Australian States. Here let me add that this has never been the law of Scotland. There is no distinction between libel and slander in Scotland. I suggest that in this matter at any rate we might now bring ourselves into line with Scotland.
1106
I do not know the position in Canada, but I believe I am right in saying that the doctrine does not apply to Quebec at all, but it does apply to the other Provinces. It was comparatively recently—I think about the 1920s—that nearly all the Canadian Provinces introduced the Slander of Women Act and, so far as I have been able to find out—I do not speak with any authority about this—there has been no increase in that form of action to any noticeable extent. In America, the position appears to be this—as my authority I quote from page 54 of the Third Edition of Gatley which is a book well known to lawyers. He says:
"The American decisions advance a less artificial ground—namely, the degradation of the plaintiff in the eyes of the hearers. If such a criterion were consistently applied, the necessity of proving special damage in cases of slander would be the exception and not the rule."
Everybody agrees that this is a logical step. I suppose everybody agrees that if we do not take the step now we shall not do it for fifty years All experience shows that this fear of there being a crop of comparatively trivial cases has not materialised, and I suggest that we can guard against it well by the provision as to costs and so on. I would remind your Lordships, that this is a form of action which is not allowed to be carried through under the legal aid procedure.
There is my dilemma. I think this Bill is an improvement on the existing law—and particularly having regard to Clause 2—but even there, to my mind, it does not go far enough. I feel strongly that it is not altogether satisfactory and that we might do something better. This is a compromise matter, worked out in another place. It is a Bill we have to take in hand and re-form, if necessary, and make it a more workable measure. I hope it will be possible in the course of the discussions on the Bill for some of the things which I have indicated, to be done. Meanwhile, I am in entire agreement with the Bill having a Second Reading at the present time.
5.32 p.m.
LORD PORTER: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House, but there are one or two things which were said by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, about which I should like to say a few words. First, with regard to the question of damages, the noble and learned Earl

1107
said it was a pity that the Bill did not contain some provision enabling the Court of Appeal to deal with damages more drastically than they do at present. Well, my Lords, in our Report we did, in fact, recommend that, but I do not think any of us desires it to be confined to this matter. There are great difficulties in saying that, as between a case of one kind—say, an accident case—and, on the other hand, a case of defamation, the Court of Appeal shall use a different measuring rod in deciding what the damages shall be; whether they will readily upset the jury in the one case and, in the other, not upset the jury except in extreme circumstances. We were not anxious to do that. We were desirous of giving the Court of Appeal generally a stronger line in cases when they feel that damages given are wrong and not tying them to the present idea that, unless it is monstrously wrong, they should not differ at all. With that view I still agree. I am speaking for myself, but I think the majority of my Committee would agree with me on that. But that is not a matter which can be put right by Act of Parliament. It is not a matter which can be put right in a Bill dealing with defamation. It is a wider problem, and I think it is a problem which might be tackled—indeed it is to some extent being tackled at the present moment by the Master of the Rolls' Committee. I am sure that it is much better dealt with there than in one particular Act. That is all I desire to say with regard to damages.
With regard to unintentional defamation, I have a great deal of sympathy with Lord Jowitt. It is true that the recommendations which the Committee made have been watered down to a very great extent, and I feel that that is a pity. One has to consider, on the one hand, whether it is desirable to get this Bill through this Session, or whether the danger of putting a great strain upon people who are at present being hit by unintentional defamation shall be allowed to continue—whether that provides sufficient justification for saying that the Bill must be drastically amended, or whether we should accept it as it is, even though it is imperfect. I think the part about which I feel most strongly is the suggestion in the Bill that any publisher or newspaper who publishes an article which
1108
is defamatory should have no protection if the person who wrote the article was malicious. I have known a case in which a novel was written by a woman who disliked a certain body with which she was associated. The publisher, in perfectly good faith, published the book. He could have no possible means of knowing that it referred to any particular body of people. Yet he had to pay damages. And, of course, as things are now, he would still have to pay damages—because the lady who wrote the book was malicious. The only question is whether, with that imperfection, with that mistake, as I think it to be, it is more desirable that the Bill should get through than that it should be postponed.
With regard to the question of mitigation of damages by cross-examination, that again, I feel, is not a matter which can be readily dealt with in a Bill dealing with defamation. It is much too wide a topic. If you are going to allow cross-examination—or, rather, evidence, for it is not cross-examination—as to credibility in the one case, you must allow it in all. Therefore, though I think it is a pity that the matter has not been considered generally, I do not think it is one which ought to appear in a Bill dealing with defamation. It should appear in a wider Bill. With regard to indemnity, I do not wish to detain the House, but there is one important part of the Bill to which I wish to refer, and that is the question of putting libel and slander on the same terms. It is true that two members of the Committee would have liked to do that. The noble Earl referred to Gatley on slander—
EARL JOWITT: I merely quoted Gatley as to the American law.
LORD PORTER: I understood that the noble and learned Earl quoted Gatley as to what Gatley thought, as well. That was my understanding, but I gladly withdraw it if it was not a correct one. Our general rule was that there might arise a large number of unnecessary claims, even slight questions of quarrels between neighbours over the fence, which I have known to happen. I can remember trying a case in which I should have awarded—the man having some right—anything from a farthing to five pounds. But there was a very sympathetic jury, and with all my endeavours I could not prevent the jury from giving him £100.

1109
It is that class of case which one is anxious should not occur in this country. It is all very well to say that Scotland (which I shall leave to other hands) does not do it. Scottish juries do not give large sums. Someone once said that the Scots are a cautious nation—cautious in what they say and in what they do. I do not think it is fair to say that because one system acts with one nation it will also act with another. After all, we have for many years put up with the distinction, and it has riot worked badly.
It is true that there are certain matters in which amendment has had to be made—the slander of women, for instance. We have suggested some amendments in our recommendations, and the Bill makes some amendments. The Bill deals with the question of the disparagement of a man in his profession, and takes care that the matters of which the noble and learned Earl has been complaining should be dealt with—and dealt with in this way: that if you say something that might disparage a man in his profession, but not merely in respect of his act in the course of his profession, if it is likely to injure him in his profession then he is protected. That has been put in. The noble Earl will be able, if necessary, to discuss the matter upon the Committee sage, but at the moment there is that protection.
The only other matter with which I think I need deal is that raised by the noble and learned Earl when he made great play with the opinions of various professors, in Oxford and Cambridge, and elsewhere. I have the greatest regard for their ability, knowledge, research and impartiality, but they have not to make the law work. That is the difficulty and the difference between us and them. We have to see that the thing goes, and they have not. I always remember that when a colleague of mine (not in this country) was elected to one of those bodies he said he had the greatest gratitude for his election, the greatest admiration for their efforts and knowledge; but he prayed them "to be kind to us who sit in another capacity" and to remember that, if it were not for the mercy of God, they might be Judges themselves. I beg to commend the Bill to your Lordships.
5.42 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLCR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I intervene for only two or three minutes in this debate. I do so in the first place because it is the first opportunity that Her Majesty's Government have had to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Porter and those who worked with him for this Report. It was a labour of many years, and a labour that was made more laborious because it had to be interrupted for so many years by the war. It is, in fact, a valuable contribution to legal literature on this branch of the law, in addition to being of great assistance to those whose task it was to frame this, Bill. That is my first and pleasant duty, to thank the noble arid learned Lore. Secondly, I should thank the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, for the trouble which he has taken in sponsoring (if I may use that word) this Bill, and for the accustomed clarity with which he has expounded it.
The third thing I want to say is that, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I welcome this Bill. There are undoubtedly points which remain in controversy and they can be dealt with, if necessary, on the Committee stage. I do not know whether the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who has spoken so forcibly on the question of the assimilation of the law of libel and slander, proposes to seek to amend the Bill in that respect, but, if he does, there will no doubt be a controversy, because I can assure your Lordships that, cogent as are the arguments which he has addressed to your Lordships in favour of assimilation, the arguments against it are, in my humble opinion, very much more forcible, and indeed won the support of all but two of the powerful and learned Committee over which my noble and learned friend Lord Porter presided. Therefore, I would not have you think, as you may have thought, listening -to so powerful an argument, that there is nothing to be said against it. In fact, for my part, I belie that the case against such assimilation is overwhelming. But, having said that, I dc not propose to go into it any more tow. I have intervened only to tell your Lordships that this Bill has blessing of Her Majesty's Government, and I hope you will give it a Second Reading.
5.45 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should not have ventured to address the House in the company of the most eminent lawyers who have already spoken but for one fact—that is, that I believe that in some small measure I am responsible for this Bill and for the Porter Committee. It was in 1938, I think, that Sir Alan Herbert introduced in another place a Private Member's Bill dealing with a number of defects in the law of defamation. While I personally thought that the law needed altering, and to a certain extent needed altering in the direction in which he was proposing to alter it, I thought that his Bill was so bad that it was incapable of satisfactory amendment. I therefore put down the usual Amendment, "That the Bill be read this day six months." I think I had the other place with me at that time. Incidentally, Sir Alan Herbert has since written a book in which he deals with this episode and says that I was put up by the Labour Party. I should like to state publicly here and now that I was not put up by anybody at all. I was speaking purely on my own behalf, as I am to-day. It looked as if the Bill was going to be defeated, but the Government of the day came to the rescue and offered us a compromise, the Porter Committee. This was accepted by both sides, and that is how the Porter Committee came into being. I am very glad that it did.
There was, of course, a danger that, in view of that kind of origin and the main purpose of Sir Alan Herbert's Bill undoubtedly being to make it more difficult for people to institute successful proceedings for libel, the bias of the Committee might well be in that direction, and that in any case they might concentrate much more on the difficulties of those who publish defamation rather than on those of the persons defamed. It has been, I recognise, difficult to hold a true balance. I think I shall not be unfair to the Committee if I say that, on the whole, most of the recommendations are recommendations which are for the benefit of people who defame rather than those who are defamed. That may well be necessary in view of the existing state of the law. But I think it is necessary for this House to see that we hold a balance between the two. After all, people who are defamed have rights. People are as entitled to
1112
enjoy their reputations and not to have them destroyed, as are people who make statements which are capable of being regarded as defamatory to receive consideration.
I personally feel that the Bill could be improved in two main respects and, at the proper time, I propose to put down Amendments for the consideration of the House. The first is to Clause 5 of the Bill. I think that that clause goes too far. In effect it says that you may make a number of separate charges, or, as it is called, utter a number of libels against a person, and if, by and large, most of them are true, then you will not be regarded as being guilty of libel because one or other of them is not true and does not materially injure the plaintiff's reputation, having regard to the truth of the remaining charges. I think that that is capable of a good deal of abuse and misunderstanding.
I noticed that in introducing the Bill the noble and learned Viscount gave as an example the case of a person who is alleged to have been sentenced to five years' imprisonment whereas in fact it was only three years' imprisonment. I would respectfully say that that kind of case is not covered by this clause at all. The kind of case that is covered by the clause is one where you make a number of statements which are damaging to a person's reputation and which are true. but in addition you make one or two other statements which are not true. I should have thought that a person whose reputation was damaged in that way should have the right to damages, in whatever amount the jury thought right, in respect of the charges which have not been proved to be true. If one is allowed to make some charges which need not be true, so long as the bulk of the charges are true, there is a great danger that people will be reckless or tend to become reckless about the kind of statements they make. I do not want to elaborate this case. It was discussed at great length in another place, and I may say that opinion in that other place was practically evenly divided in numbers and, in regard to authority, those who took my view predominated. However, I give the noble and learned Viscount notice that in due course I should like to continue that discussion in this House.

1113
I admit that the other question—namely, that of group defamation—is a most difficult one. That also was discussed at great length in another place, and of course it was the subject of consideration by the Porter Committee. I do not think that anybody who took part in the discussions, either in another place or on the Porter Committee, was prepared to justify group defamation. Everybody regarded it as an evil which ought to be dealt with if it were practicable, and from my reading of the discussions and of the Report, the whole objection of those who were against inserting a provision of this kind in the Bill was that it was not workable, that there were difficulties of definition in regard to race, creed and so on. Well, that may be so, and at the end of the day it may turn out that even with our large number of members of the highest legal authority, it is impossible to devise a form of words to achieve the object which we should all like to achieve. However, I think it would be desirable that we should try, and therefore, again on the Committee stage, I propose to put down some kind of Amendment, not necessarily one which will be completely watertight, with a view to testing the views of the House. Indeed, if I may be greatly daring and the noble and learned Viscount is willing, I should like to have the privilege of discussing with him a form of words which may be acceptable—
VISCOUNT SIMON: It will be a pleasure.
LORD SILKIN: —to see whether we can agree upon something worthy of being placed before this House. Subject to those two observations, I should like to pay my tribute to the Committee, to the initiator of the Bill in another place, and to the noble and learned Viscount who has made it so much clearer to all of us. Realising, as I do, the dilemma of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the Opposition, that there may be a conflict between making this Bill as good as we can and getting it at all, I hope that we shall be able to resolve the conflict and that, properly amended, the Bill will in due course be placed upon the Statute Book.
5.56 p.m.
LORD TUCKER: My Lords, I should not feel justified in intervening in this debate, especially at this late hour of the evening, were it not for the fact that I think I am one of only some six or seven members of your Lordships' House who have ever tried a libel or a slander action. I do not pretend to ha re anything like the experience in that type of litigation of the noble and learned Earl and the noble and learned Viscount in their days at the Bar, which were no doubt much more profitable than any incursion of that kind that ever fell to my lot. But I do feel that the view s of, I was going to say, the unfortunate judge who sometimes has to carry out the kitty or put it into practice, might sometimes be heard on these occasions. When I heard the noble and earned Earl quote academic lawyers on this subject, it made me feel determined to rise to my feet to have my say on the subject, because I fee that those who have to try these cases are, perhaps, in that respect at any rate, qualified to express an opinion, whereas the academic lawyers, much as we respect them and accept their advice, have not in fact had the onerous task of trying these cases. I sometimes wish they had, when I read some of their criticisms and observations.
In the course of my forty years experience of the law, I have always felt that the law of libel and its practice are a blot on our legal system. It is one of those types of action which I think have brought the question of the expense of the law very much into disrepute. Most of the expensive and often very unnecessary actions are lib actions which involve enormous costs. They have been made more expensive by the ingenuity of lawyers, who have designed all kinds of terrors by way of interlocutory proceedings for those who venture upon those dangerous seas, and I welcome this Bill as I think it goes some way to removing some of the blots on the law of libel.
I would agree that it is possibly capable of improvement in some respects, but I join issue with the noble and learned Earl when he suggests that the law of libel and of slander should be assimilated. I am going to be guilty of what he called "trotting out" the argument that it would tend to lead to unnecessary and frivolous actions. I firmly believe that it would.

1115
Already there are a number of actions which have their origin in the back garden or the public house, in which people bring actions in respect of words spoken, which they seek to bring within the present law by saying that they have suggested the commission of a criminal offence. I have had to try a number of those trifling actions—actions which assume a far greater importance in a court of law, before a jury, than they do when you read of them in cold print. I think that to throw open the courts to actions with regard to the spoken word, merely because it is defamatory but where no damage can be shown to have accrued, would be a dangerous and, in my view, an unnecessary move. It is fortunate that this class of action cannot be brought at the public expense under the system which now exists for assisting litigants. If that system were ever extended to libel and slander actions the position would be even worse than I apprehend it might be if the law were in these respects assimilated. I do not attempt to speak for anyone except myself. I do not know what are the views of other judges who have had experience in trying these matters, but, for myself, I should be strongly opposed to the suggestion that the law of libel and slander should be assimilated.
6.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I think we have come to the end of this debate, and I will add only two or three words before the House is asked to give this Bill a Second Reading. It may be convenient to read the paragraph in the Porter Report—it is paragraph 38—which sums up the reasons which Lord Porter and the great majority of his colleagues thought would lead to the conclusion that there ought not to be assimilation between the law of libel and slander. This is what the Committee said:
"Arbitrary and illogical as the present law is, it does not seem to us that the true solution lies either in abolishing slander actionable per se entirely or in assimilating slander to libel and making all defamatory statements actionable without proof of special damage. Slander is often trivial, not infrequently good tempered and harmless, and in that form commonly enough a topic of conversation. If all slander were actionable per se, the scope for trivial but costly litigation might be enormously increased. So far as slander in ordinary conversation is concerned, it is not normally taken seriously by speaker or listener, and, in the great majority of cases, does little or no harm"
1116
I read that to put it on the record without arguing further. That is the view, as I gather, which my noble and learned friend Lord Tucker is also disposed to hold. I am sure we should all like to congratulate him on what, I think, is the first occasion of his intervening in the public debates of this House.
The only other quotation from the Report which I should venture to make has reference to one of the observations of Lord Silkin. If I did not use a happy illustration for the purpose of explaining the clause when I spoke of a man complaining that it was not true he had been sentenced to five years' imprisonment as he had been sentenced to only three years' imprisonment, let me read the paragraph in the Report which explains why the Committee take the view they do. And it is that view which is exactly translated in this Bill. Paragraph 81 reads:
"In this respect, we think that the existing case law has in the course of its evolution tended to encourage too close a dissection of each sentence, indeed of each phrase, in a defamatory statement and to overlook the real effect of the statement when read as a whole. Judged by first principles, a plaintiff should not he entitled to recover damages if the defendant proves that the main charge or gist of the libel is true, even though he fails to prove the truth of some minor charge, provided that such minor charge does not add appreciably to the injury to the plaintiff's reputation."
That, at least, is the view which the Porter Committee put before us. I avoid making any further speech. Your Lordships' House has other business with which it wishes to deal, and many have assembled for that purpose. After this debate, I beg to ask your Lordships now to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THE DEAN OF CANTERBURY
6.5 p.m.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is any legal action that can be taken against Dr. Hewlett Johnson, Dean of Canterbury, for his alleged statements reflecting on the conduct of British troops liable to create ill-feeling between Her Majesty's subjects and those of other nations; and to bring the Established Church into contempt and disrepute. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hesitated for a considerable

1117
time before I placed on the Order Paper the Question which stands in my name. My hesitation was clue to the fact that I did not want to give colour to any thought that I wished in any way to limit liberty and freedom of expression, either civil or religious. But there comes a time when one inquires whether there is not a point at which liberty can develop into licence, and whether it can then do great harm to the body politic That is why I have put down the Question which is now before the House.
The whole country has been stirred on this matter, as is evidenced by what has appeared in the Press, and a great deal of attention has been directed to the remarks made recently by the Dean of Canterbury. Those remarks have reflected very much on the conduct of troops of the United Nations Forces, and therefore our own troops must be more or less concerned. Dr. Hewlett Johnson has also stated that a certain amount of germ warfare is being carried on. Normally, it would not matter a row of two pins if it were only Dr. Hewlett Johnson who, in a private capacity, said these things: but the fact that he is the Dean of Car terbury makes a great deal of difference. It is very difficult for people—and especially people overseas—having regard to the particular connection of the Church of England and the State, to believe that such statements are without Government responsibility, and that there is no real foundation of fact for them. Not only is there that ignorance abroad, but my correspondence—and my post-bag has been very heavy lately—has told me that it also obtains to a very large extent in this country. Your Lordships know the character of the Bill which we have just been discussing, and I hope that nothing will be said in this debate which will bring any of us within the ambit of that measure. Were it a question only of individuals, then, as that Bill has indicated, there is a remedy. But when the whole libel is against the nation, when people who are near and dear to us may be connected therewith. it is another matter.
What I particularly wish to draw to the attention of the House is the position occupied by the gentleman whose conduct we are considering. His political professions are no concern of mine: they are a matter for his intelligence and his
1118
conscience. But I am bound to say that I marvel at the insensitiveness of one whose duty it is to preach the Christian faith that he should be able to extol a materialistic doctrine cm philosophy based on hate bitterness and all uncharitableness. It is that. I venture to suggest, that makes it worth while that we should give some consideration to this matter. It is now four years since I was in China. I traveled, it would seem, further than did the Dean of Canterbury. I had the privilege of addressing a good number of universities, and I met numbers of missionaries and others engaged in that very arduous and self-sacrificing work. Incidentally, several of my own relatives are in the mission field. I am wondering what is going to be the position of the Chinese Christians, in view of the statements made by a high dignitary of the Church, from what they might, to a certain extent, consider the centre of Christianity.
Here is a man who is in charge of one of our greatest historic and sacred shrines saying, in effect, that the Christian people with whom he is associating are guilty of conduct outside the range of even ordinary humanity, apart from anything else, and saying this to those who have always looked to us for religious instruction and guidance. What hope will there be of re-starting our work in the Far East in future? This sort of thing brings us into conflict with other nations and brings the Church into disrepute and bad odour. I sometimes wonder whether it is not a question of mental instability, for it is difficult to believe that one who has been abroad and slandered his own country and who then comes back to walk about quite freely and meet with the tolerance of public opinion, can have given a thought to what might happen if he had gone the other way. Would he have dared to go back to that country which he holds up to us as a pattern and example after behaving in such a way?
I do not know the Dean, and I am not concerned about him as an individual. But I am very much concerned that, at a time when the world, is sitting on a gunpowder barrel, when we are trying to do everything we can to bring the nations of the world into closer harmony, things should be said which are likely to cause suspicion and unreason. I have put down this Question in order to give an opportunity, not for us to wreak vengeance on anybody but for an

1119
authoritative statement to be made on the position which such a person as the Dean occupies in relation to the affairs of both Church and nation. I hope that it will also give the authorities concerned an opportunity to make clear, if they are able to do so, their abhorrence of such conduct being used in connection with warfare. All the questions I have raised need an answer, and there can be no place where such a Question will be treated with greater respect than in your Lordships' House. For these reasons, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
6.14 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER
BURY: My Lords, I know a great deal more about the law of defamation than I did earlier this afternoon. As the discussion of that Bill went on, I became more and more frightened about what might happen to some of us, until I remembered that anything said here is privileged. The matter we are discussing now is to me, and to all of us, a most unwelcome matter; but in view of the publicity that it has received, I think it is as well that it should be debated in this House. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, who has asked this Question, and I appreciate very much the way in which he has put it. By asking it, he enables me to repeat what I have frequently said during the last few years. I have published statements making clear the precise position of the Dean of Canterbury and my own attitude to him. But such statements are very quickly forgotten, and I welcome this opportunity to make the position as I see it both better known and, if possible, better understood.
I welcome this debate for another reason. The Dean is a citizen as well as a churchman, and it is valuable that the Lords Temporal, as well as the Lords Spiritual, should discuss his position, and if, as a result, a common mind is reached as to the right attitude to adopt towards him, it would be a strength and comfort to me and to the Church. Your Lordships will understand that I am particularly affected in many ways by the Dean's activities, not least in this way. Many people on the Continent, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, unaccustomed to the liberty which we enjoy, in Church and State, are convinced that no Dean
1120
of Canterbury could possibly speak in public except as the mouthpiece of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Accordingly, in all innocence, they attribute to me all the opinions expressed by the Dean. Indeed, there are many people on the Continent who believe, oddly enough, that the Archbishop and the Dean are one and the same person. Herein lies the chief damage wrought by the Dean. Everyone here, and in the Dominions and in the United States, realises that the Dean speaks for nobody but himself, and that his words carry no weight, except such weight as he is able to give them. But on the Continent and in Eastern countries nothing can convince people that one who bears the name of Canterbury in his official title does not speak for the Archbishop, for the Church, and in some sense for the generality of Christian people in this land.
What is the complaint against the Dean? It is important that we should ask that question and be sure that we get the right answer to it. I think it is important for ourselves that we may be sure we are judging him rightly and justly, and not giving way to prejudice and passion. It is important also for other people, for there are some who, in revulsion from the Dean's utterances, become—dare I say?—as blind, as unreasonable and as stupid about the Dean as the Dean is himself. We should try to help them to escape from that kind of fanatical disease. And dare I say that I think it is important for the Dean himself that we should define the complaint against him as fairly as we can, so that even now, if possible, he may be brought to see where his gravest errors lie?
There is no charge against the Dean because he holds certain political and sociological views. As a citizen, he is fully entitled to hold these, however mistaken they may be. As a churchman, he is fully entitled to hold them, since (as I shall explain later) in the form in which he holds them, he does not deny any Christian doctrine. He is therefore within his rights; and he has broken no law, civil or ecclesiastical. But he holds a prominent and responsible ecclesiastical office. He bears in the title of his office the name of Canterbury, which holds a venerated place in our national and ecclesiastical history and which has a deep significance all over the world, both for

1121
the Anglican Communion and for all English-speaking people. The Dean's first and final duty, therefore, is to the ecclesiastical office which he holds; and he must do nothing to misuse or compromise that office. The complaint is that over a long period of time he has seriously misused and compromised his office, and that he did this in two ways—first, by a degree of unreason and self-delusion, obvious to everybody but himself, which robs his judgment of the respect which is required of a holder of his office. He is sincere, passionately sincere; but he really can no longer see himself, his views or political affairs objectively. He has lost all sense of the right proportion of things, and all the general controls of common sense.
I need not refer in detail to his utterances about germ warfare. I find that he has circulated a document to all of your Lordships, and you can read it and judge for yourselves. If he had said that, in his view, in the light of what he had heard in China, there was a case which called. for investigation, nobody would have complained—though it is relevant to add that Soviet Russia has vetoed every suggestion of an impartial inquiry. But what he has done is to ignore the moral obligation which binds all men, and especially a man in his position, tint in any matter, great or small, both sides must be heard before a judgment is made—and particularly so when on each side there is a great family of nations, and when the issue at stake is the future peace and welfare of the world. But the Dean has chosen to regard himself as a sufficient and competent judge in a matter of the utmost importance and of obvious difficulty arid complexity. I would say that by this obvious failure to seek a fair judgment after hearing both sides, by his clear incompetence, which I and your Lordships would share with him, to judge such an issue in such a matter, he brings resentment and ridicule upon himself and upon his office.
The Dean brings back with him, and has circulated to your Lordships, a document signed by 400 Chinese Christians, of all ranks and denominations. He proclaims that in China religion is free, and he believes it. My Lords, there are many people in England who know far more about the state of religious affairs
1122
in China than the Dean does. Many of us have had words and messages passed to us from Chinese Christians by strange and devious ways which count for more than anything that the Dean has heard. We have knowledge which he lacks, or ignores, as to what it means to be a Christian in China at the present time; what it means to be a deviationist from the appointed policy; what it means to decline to sign a document such as that which he has brought back with him; and what it means not to respond sufficiently to "ideological remouldings." One absent name amongst those 400 names may be far more significant to anybody who knows than the whole 400 who put their names to that document.
All that we know we cannot say, because to do so would only make things worse for so many of our Christian brethren. The Dean does not know what a pain and sorrow it is to many of us to hold silence, because that is what we are asked to do, for fear that if we spoke we should bring worse things upon our Christian brethren. It is lamentable that he should show himself so ignorant of the fact that there is another and more sombre side to the picture of the Church in China than that which he so happily observed. The existence of that other sombre side, well known to us, discounts the Dean's assertion of religious liberty; it robs his documents and his words of almost all of their significance—except this: that many of our Christian brethren in China do, in fact, believe what they have been indoctrinated to believe; and even if they do not believe it, they must still profess to do so.
I do not want to detain your Lordships too long, but only an hour ago there was put into my hand this document which has been circulated to your Lordships. Part II says at the beginning:
"The Archbishop of Canterbury has impressed upon me the duty of making contact with Christian leaders in countries I visit on my vacations, and of ministering to our people. I fulfilled both to the letter in China."
In his Press conference the Dean spoke of his journey as a mission to the churches, and in the very next sentence he said that he was fulfilling the wishes of the Archbishop of Canterbury, almost implying, although he did not actually state it, that I had sent him to China.

1123
My Lords, he never even told me that he was going to China. I feel it incumbent upon me to refer to his statement that I have impressed upon him the duty to make contact with Christian leaders, and so forth. I wrote to the Dean after the Press conference and asked him to what he referred. He referred me to correspondence we had over three years ago, in 1948, and I looked up the letter which he had in mind. In that letter I said that it had been reported to me that in his visits to the Continent he did not visit the leaders of Churches, and that he did not minister to the British community in those places. I then said:
"Perhaps as things are it is better that you should do neither."
I went on to say:
"There is a dilemma. You cannot go at one and the same time as both a minister of religion and as an ambassador of particular political views."
My letter ended—and this is most remarkable, in view of what he says in this document:
"There is only one way in which this dilemma can be solved. Either you must cease your political partisan activities, or you must resign the office of Dean so as to be free to pursue them without compromising your office."
That was three years ago, and that is the letter to which the Dean referred me. He says in this document that I had impressed upon him the duty of making these contacts. But I merely impressed upon him the duty of resigning if he went on doing what he was doing. I say that as, perhaps, contributing to your Lordships' judgment of how far the Dean's judgment can be relied upon.
Secondly, even if the Dean had shown better judgment in testing and trying his views, there remains the further charge that in the way in which he has conducted himself he has misused and compromised his office. He is free to hold what views he likes. But he has made it his chief concern to advocate them with all the fervour of a fanatic. He has become an active agent for their propagation. He has (although probably he does not realise it) allowed himself to be exploited by the managers of the political system which he supports for their own ends. So he has, if I may borrow a word used recently by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester, allowed himself to "blur" the clear Christian witness of his office and of Canterbury.
1124
The Dean is no atheist. He is not an official member of the Communist Party, and has never signed "on the dotted line." He denies no Christian doctrine. He sincerely believes that Christian principles of peace-making and social justice are better applied in Communist countries than they are here. That is not in itself heresy. It is drawing a conclusion, from which I completely dissociate myself, from the same Christian doctrine that I hold. It may be wildly wrong, but we all have a right to be wrong—and it is most useful to a great number of us. But by thus throwing himself into what is a partisanship, and what must be regarded as a blind partisanship—as he once confessed to me, in a moment of candour, he is not very good at seeing both sides of a question—he is inevitably regarded by many people as sharing the atheism on which Communism is based, and as condoning the grave consequences of an atheistic conception of man and of truth. By that inevitable influence, he blurs the Christian witness against atheism and shocks those who know the sufferings and persecutions which Christians have had to bear at the hands of Communists. The Dean cannot complain if people fail to understand, or find it difficult to believe, that it is on what he regards as Christian principles that he persuades himself to accept, applaud and propagate a Communist system which is openly and declaredly atheist.
So we are confronted with this melancholy spectacle. What is to be done? Let it be said, firmly and frankly, first, that the Church has no power to proceed against him. He is not guilty of any heresy in any legal sense. If he is guilty of unreason and self delusion to a remarkable degree, these faults do not, short of the stage of certifiable lunacy, expose anyone to legal consequences—and it is fortunate for us all that they do not. There is one charge that could suggest itself, with which the Church has machinery to deal, and that is the charge of unbecoming conduct—for by his actions he has exposed himself to a charge of conduct unbecoming his office. There is a Measure in force called the Church Dignitaries (Retirement) Measure, 1948, under which there can be a trial for unbecoming conduct and, in the end, if there is a conviction, there may be a petition by which a dignitary

1125
can be removed from his office. But it is expressly provided that:
"No proceedings shall be instituted if and so far as the allegations relate to
(b) any question … of the social or political opinions or activities of a dignitary."
Now that is explicit and conclusive.
I would go a little further than this. In the parallel Measure relating to incumbents, which came first, the exclusion was of any charge
"in respect of … the social or political opinions"
of an incumbent—opinions alone, without any reference to activities. It was to meet objections from Members of Parliament that, in the Measures relating to dignitaries and bishops, we inserted this extra safeguard which included activities as well as opinions. Indeed, the first Measure ran a real risk of not getting through the House of Commons because it was supposed that the position was not sufficiently safeguarded. There you are. There will very shortly be a Measure before your Lordships amending the Incumbents Measure, to bring it into line with the Dignitaries Measure, and to secure that activities as well as opinions are excluded.
May I say that the Church was very willing to put in those words? They were designed to secure that every clergyman should enjoy the full rights of every other citizen to freedom of speech and action in social and political matters. Church and Parliament were in agreement on this point. For myself, I hope that they will remain so. It is not for the Church to try to change the law in order to extrude the Dean. We could not if we wanted to, because we cannot introduce a Measure directed against a single individual. That becomes private legislation, and the Church Assembly have no power of private legislation. Even if we could, we would not remove that clause and bring him possibly within the ambit of the Measure. There is no limit to the powers of Parliament: but, for the same reason which binds the Church. I personally hope that Parliament would riot be so ill-advised as to try to remove the Dean from his office or to restrict his freedom of utterance. This right of freedom of speech is a very precious thing. It is a vital part of our tradition—civil and ecclesiastical,
1126
both. Every freedom can be abused. If it is abused often enough and severely enough, steps have to be taken to prevent the possibility of abuse, and thereby every man's freedom is limited. It is a tragedy that abusers of freedom thereby jeopardise other men's freedoms. But it is wisdom to bear with folly and unreason and delusions, short of real danger to the body politic, as a price well worth paying to preserve this precious freedom of speech.
The Dean, I would say, is not yet a danger to the public safety. He may be a public nuisance. He is certainly a thorn in the flesh to all of us, and he causes indignation and real sorrow to many people. But the Church of England and this country have stood up to a great many other victims of unreason and self delusion and blind partisanship, and have come through it successfully. I think we can put up with the Dean. If the Press could only lose interest in him, everyone else would soon do likewise. Even if the price we have to pay for freedom is rising, as a letter in The Times said, it is still worth paying. May I say that on the Continent and in the Far East, where the Dean does his worst damage, he would be no less mischievous but, I would say, more mischievous, as the extruded Dean, than as the Dean in office? At least, we can say that he is a signal example of the fact that we have a conception of freedom utterly different from that of those countries which he adopts as his own.
May I say one word more? In the Question of the noble Lord there are only one or two words to which I take exception. The noble Lord ends by saying that the Dean brings the Established Church into contempt and disrepute. Well, it may seem so, and many feel acutely, as I do myself, the harm that he does. But, on a more considered view, I do not think that it is true that the existence of the Dean brings the Church into contempt or disrepute. For, as of this country, so of this Church, it is to be said that one of our greatest glories which serve to keep us in the way of living truth is this right of members, short of heresy, to speak the truth as each sees it. Like every other great possession of the spirit, it is open to error; and yet we gain by the possession more than we can ever lose by limiting our possession of it. So, I conclude.

1127
For the reasons I have given, the Dean is a public nuisance to the Church and to the State—to the State as a citizen, doubly so to the Church, both as a citizen and as a churchman. I believe firmly that he is to be endured with such patience as we can command unless and until either he breaks some law, ecclesiastical or civil, or becomes a real danger to the public safety, when it will be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take action. I trust that the Church and State may agree in this conclusion, and that we may help each other by sharing this liability between us, believing it is still a small price to pay in order to keep supreme and unblurred our belief in freedom of speech as of vital concern to Church and land.
6.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, has put on the Paper a Question which, as it is on its face a legal question, it falls to me, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to answer. But I am indeed glad that the most reverend Primate spoke before me, for this question raises a moral issue and a question of church discipline upon which he speaks with an authority which far transcends mine: and, so speaking, he has surely made clear to your Lordships and, I hope, to the whole world, how the conduct of this vain and foolish man is regarded by all men of good will.
I have said that it falls to me to answer the Question—and so I will, so far as I properly can. I use those guarded words, for the question is really how far the Dean of Canterbury has rendered himself amenable to the criminal law of this country. That is a question which it is not for me or for any member of Her Majesty's Government to answer but for the Attorney-General to decide; and he has said in another place explicitly, I think yesterday, that in his opinion the evidence available against the Dean of Canterbury:
"… does not disclose a prima facie case of treason."
He dealt with no other evidence; but he permits me to say that he still has under consideration whether in any other respect the Dean has rendered himself amenable to criminal law. I can obviously say no more upon that question: it would not be right for me to
1128
do so. But perhaps I may be permitted to add one sentence. It is this. It surely would not alter one jot our view of the wickedness and folly of the Dean's conduct, even if it is proved that the common law, which embodies the wisdom of our ancestors, or the statutory law, which from time to time Parliament in its wisdom has thought fit to enact, have alike failed to foresee and to provide for such wickedness and folly as this. That is all I can say upon this subject to-night.
6.44 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I had intended to make a speech; but I can relieve your minds: I do not intend any more to do so. I do not intend to do so because, after the noble words of the most reverend Primate, there is really nothing more to be said. If he will allow me to say so, I thought that his speech, so full of tolerance, so full of wisdom, has set us all an example of the line we ought to take. I feel with him that this sort of excess is the price we have to pay for our own liberty, and that, if we were to try to get rid of this "turbulent priest" as in years past they tried to get rid of a turbulent priest, we might have even greater trouble. For the rest, I can well understand that this man must be a thorn in the flesh to the Archbishop—indeed, I confess he has been a thorn in the flesh to me. But I hope that after this debate the Press, and every other organ of publicity, may leave this man severely and entirely alone.
6.45 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I hope I shall not be one of the "stupid people" to whom the most reverend Primate referred at the beginning of his speech. I entirely agree with what has fallen from the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in regard to the speech of the most reverend Primate. I feel that the Archbishop demonstrated in his speech that every effort has been made by him to deter the Dean from continuing to behave as he has done in the past—but to no avail. It does not appear that anything will stop this man from carrying on as he has been doing during the last two years. If he is dangerous in the Church—and I consider him to be—I do not think he would be more dangerous, in fact I feel it would

1129
be very unlikely that he would be more dangerous, out of the Church. It seems to me, from what has fallen front the Archbishop, that the Dean is quite unfitted to occupy the great position he does within our Church. We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, for having raised this question. There is no doubt, I think, that all of us realise that there is great and genuine public concern and distress about the actions of the Dean.
I should like to ask the Government a question. How did the Dean finance these long trips of his throughout the world? They must have been very expensive, and I should like to know where he obtained the money from. None of us can get the money to go abroad for more than a very short time. Who is responsible for putting this money at his disposal? I understand that the Dean has a salary of £2,000 a year. That seems to me to involve a full-time job, yet he absents himself for very considerable periods in order to go about the world.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER
BURY: He is governed by the Statutes of Canterbury Cathedral, which require him to be present for so many days a year. So far as I know, he has fulfilled that quota. The rest of the time is at his own disposal.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Can he not he dispensed from that quota in the future?
LORD TEVIOT: I wish it to be understood that what I am going to say does not mean that I depart one iota from my desire to see that free speech and the liberty of the subject are not interfered with in any way. The Dean, acting as he has done, as the Dean, has in my opinion and I think in the view of the general public done a very great deal of harm. As a private individual he is of no importance: let him go about as other people do. There are some in our country who agree with him and speak: as he does. But I come now to what is a most serious thing, particularly in a high dignitary of the Church. He has borne false witness not only against his neighbour but against his country and his country's friends. Many people still take notice of what is laid down in the Commandments of the Bible, and that is what, in my view, with great respect to the Church, he has done. I feel
1130
strongly that we have tolerated the Dean too long. As has already been said, he has lowered the prestige and the status of our Church, not only in this country but throughout the world.
It is said, and the most reverend Primate has said, that there is no power existing to-day to deal with him, to remove him, to "unfrock" him, or whatever is the proper phrase. The word "impossible" should not be in our vocabulary at all. I would draw your Lordships' attention to this. It is said:
"if ye have faith and doubt not, it shall be done";
And again:
"All things are possible."
I cannot believe that the removal of this man from his office is an impossibility. The Communism which he supports is the curse of the world, causing misery to millions, as we well know. Undoubtedly, there are millions, and the majority of the millions in the world who are longing for those who are against Communism—and I believe that this applies even in Russia—to stand up and destroy this pernicious creed. That must happen unless civilisation based on the teachings of Christ is completely to be destroyed. The most reverend Primate has referred to atheism. We know that atheism is a brother to Communism.
I urge the Government to go into this question of powers for the removal of this Dean. Is it impossible so to increase the powers of the hierarchy of the Church, or to give them new powers, to enable them to remove not only the Dean but also others throughout the country whom I would not mind seeing unfrocked? There are certain places in the country where your Lordships and I go to stay, where we say: "What is the parson like here?" And sometimes the answer is: "Oh, a poor creature who has no influence whatever with the people." I think it should be within the powers of the hierarchy of the Church to get rid of people who are not fit for their calling. If this sort of thing goes on and the Dean continues his campaign, what will it lead to? It will lead to hate and brutality, and that, in the end, means war. He must know perfectly well of the appalling suffering and misery, of the rule of fear, murder and kidnapping—it was admitted yesterday in another place that kidnapping was going, on now in Berlin. It is all very well for noble

1131
Lords to laugh about this. It is no laughing matter at all. It is a most serious thing about which the public are deeply concerned, as I am, and I do not see that I am making a joke of this question at all. My remarks are perfectly genuine and it is with deep feeling that I make them.
The Dean must know, as we all know, that these people, whose activities he appears to support, are endangering the peace of the world. I say that it is time that a stop was put to his activities. We have all been circularised with a document. It must have cost a pretty penny, judging by its size and the expensive paper on which it is printed. The Dean makes an appeal to the Archbishop of York, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to the British people, to all Christian leaders and so on. The Powers he supports, as has already been stated, refuse an impartial inquiry into the terrible indictment he has brought against not only the United States but, incidentally, ourselves. I hope that the Government will not take this matter lightly and that they will do something, so that, when this sort of thing happens or if it continues, the hierarchy of the Church may be able adequately to deal with it.
6.56 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that, when the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, was making his interesting speech, the most reverend Primate, the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition must have been echoing the cry:
"Save me from my friends,"
because the noble Lord made just the kind of speech which, if your Lordships were swayed by it, would undo the good of the judicial and, if I may say so, fair-minded arguments that we have heard from the previous three speakers.
During the Second World War, at a very critical period, the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, who, I believe, is to intervene later this evening, rose in his place in your Lordships' House and, if I may use the expression, made an extremely violent pacifist speech. Nobody agreed with him, so far as I know—least of all myself. But so enraged were certain noble peers that, strangely enough from the Liberal Benches, two noble
1132
Lords rose and tried to move "that the noble Duke be no longer heard." Much as I disagreed with every word that had fallen from him, I resisted that Motion. I am glad to say that I had some support, and it was not carried. For exactly the same reason this evening I oppose the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, his proposal, and the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. The arguments were put even better than I can put them by the most reverend Primate himself. I noticed that, after the most reverend Primate had abused his Dean to loud cheers from the Benches opposite, when he proceeded to stand up for the right of expression and freedom of conscience and speech, the Benches opposite were strangely silent.
LORD TEVIOT: No.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, they were silent, and my noble friends on these Benches can bear me out.
LORD TEVIOT: I must interrupt the noble Lord. I was sitting here and, though I am a little deaf, I was almost deafened by the "Hear, hears!" on this side.
LORD STRABOLGI: I shall go to my doctor to-morrow in that case, because I certainly did not hear them. However, I want to draw your Lordships' attention to another episode in this venerable House. I remember vividly with great pride the late Marquess of Crewe, whom I like to think of as the last of the grand seigneurs, rising from the Liberal Benches and protesting with great force and great eloquence against the continued suppression of the Daily Worker by the Coalition Government—with, incidentally, a Labour Home Secretary. On the ground that the Press should be free and not unduly interfered with, the noble Marquess, speaking with the authentic voice of historic Liberalism, made his protest—in vain for the time being. But eventually it was listened to.
I have one or two things to say on this subject, which I do not propose to modify in any way. I do not accept the charges about germ warfare in Korea or North China, or wherever it was. I accept the disclaimers by the Foreign Office and the American Government. Nevertheless, I should like to see an impartial inquiry on this matter. I agree with the most reverend Primate and with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, on that,

1133
because this story has now gone round the world; and though I accept what my Foreign Office say, and even what the American Government say in this matter, there are a great many people who will not do so. They include people who are well-disposed towards us and to our cause, not Communists at all but they will be thinking that there may be something in this story. Therefore, I should like to see an impartial inquiry. But again, if I may quote the most reverend Primate—this is one of the things I cheered almost alone—both sides must be heard at that impartial inquiry. There should be a representative or spokesman from both the accusers and the accused. I must say that I am surprised that the Russians should have vetoed the International Red Cross; in their place I should certainly have accepted that organisation. But I think some means ought to be found to get sonic other body which carries respect, which certainly should be impartial and which would, as the most reverend Primate says, hear both sides. But, having said that, I accept the Foreign Office denial of this charge.
I rise in your Lordships' House and, with the greatest emphasis I can command, I say that it is an unworthy action of my noble friend to attack the right of the very reverend Dean of Canterbury to express his opinion. His opinion happens to differ from mine, but he has every right to express it. My noble friend Lord Ammon has fought, all his life for certain principles, one of the most important of which was liberty of conscience, liberty of expression and freedom of speech. I, too, have fought for those principles for a good deal of my life, and I consider that his action to-night is a betrayal of what he has set out to achieve during his life that is why I wish to protest.
EARL WINTERTON: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene to ask one question I may be able to shorten my remarks later on. Does the statement which he has just made, that neither your Lordships' House nor anyone else should do any thing to affect freedom of speech, apply to a criminal offence? Assuming that the Government find that this man has been guilty of such an offence, would the noble Lord attack his noble friend behind him in the same terms?
LORD STRABOLGI: Of course not. I should have thought that question was entirely irrelevant and unnecessary. Anyone guilty of a criminal act can be proceeded against. That has nothing to do with freedom of conscience and of speech, which the most reverend Primate defended and which, in one sentence, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, also defended. The opinions expressed by the very reverend Dean of Canterbury are opinions to which he is entitled, and to suppress them would be a crime against liberty. For that reason, I, and I believe many of your Lordships, would be prepared, if it came to the point, to resist such suppression.
Perhaps I may put this point to the most reverend Primate, who I can see is going to be in some difficulty in the months ahead. Some of his brethren in God have from time to time expressed extreme Conservative opinion. At some stage we in this country might have a Left Wing Government and certain members of the Bench of Bishops might protest in public, in this House and in their pulpits against what they thought were measures or legislation injurious to the public. They would be perfectly entitled to do so, and if any attempts were made to suppress or silence them I should in the same way resist that attempt; and I believe many of your Lordships would do the same. I will quote an actual case which I believe the noble Earl who was good enough to intervene just now, to my great pleasure, will remember. The late Bishop of Durham, Dr. Hensley Henson, a very eminent Churchman, was a very high Tory in politics, and he vented his resentment bitterly against the miners of the North of England during a particularly critical and difficult period of industrial strife, and the resentment felt against the then Bishop of Durham on the part of the miners, their families and friends, was equally bitter. There were demands that he should be dealt with, or should be proceeded against, for the harm he was doing to the country in increasing industrial strife. Of course, no action was taken, and, indeed. I should have resisted such action.
LORD LAWSON: They were going to pitch him and one of his pals into the river.
LORD STRABOLGI: I have heard a miners' leader, a highly respected man and a follower of the Church, declare—and he meant it—that it was a good day for the devil when Hensley Henson was elevated to the See of Durham. No doubt in your Lordships' House and in another place, there is similar feeling in some quarters against the very reverend Dean of Canterbury—
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER BURY: May I intervene, not to correct in any great detail what has been said, but to say I am not sure that the noble Lord is not confusing the Bishop of Durham and the then Dean of Durham. It was the Dean of Durham who was nearly put into the river. But I really wanted to intervene to say that when Bishop Hensley Henson resigned the bishopric, there was no man in the world to whom the miners of Durham were so devoted.
LORD STRABOLGI: Then the miners showed a Christian charitableness for which we must all admire them. I sympathise with the most reverend Primate, but I do not think that on this occasion I did confuse the Dean and his Bishop. In a case of that kind, if there were any movement against a right reverend Prelate for political activities against a Left Wing Government, or in time of great industrial tension, it would be the duty of your Lordships to stand in defence of the same principle as I am standing now, and I believe your Lordships would do it in the event.
Now I am going to call to my aid against my noble friend—and it is far more dangerous when a noble Lord on these Benches takes his line than when a noble Lord opposite does so—what a great figure in the Labour Party (I refer to my right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede) has written in the Hansard Society's publication on Parliament and the Liberty of the Subject. If your Lordships will bear with me for a moment or two, I will venture to quote these words written by a man who, as Home Secretary, made very few enemies:
"The community must be prepared to face the fact that if we claim freedom for the propagation of ideas with which we agree, we must grant others freedom to advocate ideas which we detest; and it must accept this proposition not merely as a matter of logic
1136
and fair play but as a fundamental principle. The suppression of an opinion whether by Government or by public pressure is, in the words of John Stuart Mill"—
I have been quoting Mr. Chuter Ede, who now goes on to refer to the writings of John Stuart Mill, whose writings in certain countries, and in certain circumstances, the most reverend Primate will know have been described as subversive, just as I have heard the Sermon on the Mount also described as subversive—
"'robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion still more those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception, and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error'."
Now, if I may, I quote again from Mr. Chuter Ede. He states:
"if civil liberty is to exist in more than name it must be founded on toleration; not the toleration which is a euphemism for indifference, but an active toleration which not merely permits but encourages the expression of diverse opinions, believing that only so can an understanding of the truth be attained and preserved."
I prefer the views of my right honourable friend to those of my noble friend Lord Ammon. Since 1914 the lamps have been going out all over Europe. They are flickering now in France, and the lamps are not burning any too brightly in the United States. I refer to the lamps of liberty and freedom. Do not let us put any more out here.
7.11 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I would make only this comment on the speech which has just been delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. Throughout his speech, which, if I may say so, seemed to me at times to be slightly irrelevant to the subject, he tended to confuse the issue and so also, to some extent, if I may say so with great respect, did His Grace the Archbishop, to whose speech all of your Lordships listened with the greatest interest—it was on the highest level of statesmanship. What is at issue here is not the question of liberty of speech. What is at issue is whether or not this man has so behaved that he is unfit to be a member of any Christian church; whether, as a subject of Her Majesty, he has committed

1137
an offence which is punishable by law. Those are the two matters which are at issue in this debate, and I rather regretted that the noble Lord opposite, to whom, despite political differences, I have been bound for many years by ties of friendship, should have made the charge against noble Lords on this side of the House that we are not interested in liberty of speech. We are just as much interested as is the noble Lord.
I should like in the speech which I wish to make to your Lordships—and it will be brief, for I know that all your Lordships are waiting to hear my noble friend the Leader of the House speak on this most difficult matter—to present very shortly a slightly different point of view from any that has yet been put forward in the debate. The Dean of Canterbury is an avowed, acknowledged, and orthodox Communist. He is not, as the most reverend Primate has pointed out, actually a member of the Communist Party; but one would need to be very jejeune or very naive—and I am sure the Archbishop is neither—if one supposed that the fact that he has not signed on the dotted line makes him any less a Communist.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER BURY: If I may, I should like just to explain. To the best of my belief, in Russia you cannot be a member of the Communist Party unless you are avowedly an atheist. The point. I tried to make is that communism now does mean atheistic communism. The Dean is not an atheist and therefore is not a subscriber to atheistic communism.
EARL WINTERTON: I am very much obliged to the most reverend Primate. I appreciate his point. The point I was making was that it was obviously not to the advantage of the Communist Internationale that this man should be acknowledged as one of its members; but that he is one of the most active Communists in the world outside the Iron Curtain must be clear to anyone. He believes with fanatical ferocity in Communism, and he equates this religion of Beelzebub with the Christian religion. He has persuaded himself that Christianity and Communism are one and the same thing. It may be—as is sometimes suggested—that he is mentally deranged. I have been told by a churchman whom I greatly esteem that that is
1138
so. But it is quite certain that he is sincere in his convictions. Now what are the tenets of this horrible code which the Dean supports? You must lie, you must slander, you must bear false witness, you must tolerate cruelties as horrible as those of the Nazis when you are told to do so by the hierarchy of the Party. As to his going to Communist China—where, as the Archbishop in his most eloquent speech has said, Christian people are being subjected to horrible tortures—the moral offence of this man was in going there and being on terms of friendship with those torturers, quite apart from anything which he has said since he got back. The moral offence is that he has gone to be a colleague of torturers and apparently to approve of that torture. That shows that his moral turpitude in that respect is as great as in other things which he has done.
Now, of course, he is very valuable to the Communists. I deprecate the idea which has been apparent in some of your Lordships' speeches this afternoon which might be expressed as, "Poor old man, no one takes any notice of him; he is old and decrepit and he does not matter." My Lords, he matters a great deal to the Communists. They have no more valuable adherent in this country than the Dean of Canterbury, for the very reasons which have been mentioned by the Archbishop in his speech. I am going to say a few words about Joyce afterwards—the Mr. Joyce who was executed for treason. Doctor Hewlett Johnson is more valuable in many ways to the Communists than Joyce ever was to the Nazis. The Nazis did not take Joyce very seriously in the latter stages of his career. But the Communists take the Dean of Canterbury very seriously because, as the Archbishop has pointed out, he is connected in many peoples' minds with the Church of England and with Canterbury Cathedral, and is even confused with the Archbishop himself.
The point seems to me a very simple one. The code in which he believes, the code of Communism, tells him that he must utter foul slanders against the United Nations and the troops, living and dead; that he must lacerate the feelings of millions of people—because that is what he has done—the relations and friends of those who are fighting or who have died in Korea, and, incidentally, that he must do the greatest mischief he can

1139
to Anglo-American amity. It is not for him to inquire into the truth of the matter that would be contrary to the code. I doubt whether he knows that he is doing wrong by spreading this lie, because he has been morally anæsthetised by the companionship which he has kept for so many years. We are told that nothing can be done about it officially by the Church. I, of course, accept what the most reverend Primate has said in this connection. It would be very wrong, especially for a new recruit to your Lordships' House such as myself, to attempt to controvert anything which the Archbishop has said. I accept it. I notice, however, that the Archbishop did say that Doctor Hewlett Johnson had misused and compromised his office. I should have thought that in any other organisation except the Church of England a man who misused and compromised his office would be brought under some sort of disciplinary action. "Misused and compromised" is a very strong phrase for the Archbishop to use, but I accept it. But it seems that owing to the peculiar constitution of the Church of England—which, as a loyal Churchman, I do not quarrel with—nothing can be done about it.
I would venture to demur from one statement made by the Archbishop, that the Dean had never denied any Christian doctrine. I seem to remember that there is a Christian doctrine which says:
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
This man has borne palpable false witness against his neighbour.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER BURY: My Lords, I take that to mean: "Thou shalt not wittingly bear false witness against thy neighbour." The noble Lord has not proved that the Dean has "wittingly" published false witness, although in fact he has published false witness. That is really the issue. Does one deal with a man by his acts or by his intentions in a matter?
EARL WINTERTON: I do not wish to make a frivolous joke which will be resented by your Lordships' House, but the next time I go to church I shall remember to say "wittingly." I am very much obliged to the most reverend Primate and accept the point which he
1140
has made. To be serious I did not imagine that that was the meaning of the Commandment. We have been told by the Government—and the Chancellor put his case very clearly, as one would expect from him—that for the moment nothing can be done, but I am very glad that the matter is under consideration by the Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting, but it is not a matter for the Government: it is a matter for the Attorney-General. I should like the House to be clear about that, because it is a very important constitutional point.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord. I should have said that it was under the cognisance of the Attorney-General. I do not want to be sarcastic, but I cannot help remarking that this puissant nation to whom millions of tortured beings behind the Iron Curtain look for aid, this great land so fertile of new ideas and inventions, like the Comet, has no means or machinery for dealing with this enemy of Western civilisation, whom all Parties are prepared to support in this House even when he has grossly slandered Allied troops.
LORD STRABOLGI: Will the noble Earl permit me to interrupt in my turn? Is he suggesting that we should bring in retrospective legislation? How otherwise can we deal with this?
EARL WINTERTON: I said I accepted the situation, that we have no means of dealing with the Dean. The noble Lord could not have heard what I said. I must give him the same advice as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, recently gave me in another debate—he must adjust his hearing aid. No doubt the noble Viscount who is going to reply to the debate will consider this point. I understand that the difference between the case of the Dean of Canterbury and that of Mr. Joyce is this—I am using a non legal phrase, but one which I think will make clear my point to your Lordships. The difference is that Joyce, in the slanders which he broadcast, gave succour and comfort to an enemy with whom we were at war, while in this case I understand we are, from a technical point of view, not at war with Northern Korea, because it is a United Nations war, and

1141
we are not at war with Communist China; therefore it is open to the Dean, or any other person of malevolent intention like the Dean, to say things in these various undeclared wars we are fighting in different parts of the world, such as Malaya, which are highly detrimental to the course of the campaign, and we cannot proceed against him, as we did against others in the last war.
So far as I know, no one in your Lordships' House, certainly no one in another place, raised any objection when Joyce was brought to trial or when another person, whom I do not want to name because of long-standing affection and friendship with his relations, was brought to trial. No one then said, "Do not make a martyr of this man." No one then said, "He is not worth the trouble." No one then said, "Do not give him an advertisement." No one then said, "This is merely a Press stunt." Joyce was brought to trial and hanged by his neck until he died, because he had committed treason. Morally but, of course, not legally, the case of the Dean of Canterbury is no better than that of Mr. Joyce—no better at all. He has made charges against the Allied troops as slanderous as anything that Joyce said about Allied troops during the war.
I know we are an illogical nation, and may I say that your Lordships share occasionally in that illogicality, but illogicality can go too far. I have consulted more than one constitutional authority as to whether the law as it stands at present is sufficiently strong to deal with actions that would be legally treasonable if we were fighting a declared war instead of an undeclared one. It may be that there is nothing in this. It may be necessary to continue to put up with the Dean. While accepting fully what the most reverend Primate and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor have said, I do not think your Lordships will be able to go away this afternoon and say that the whole thing is disposed of, and that it does not really matter. Your Lordships have shown yourselves in accord with the leading articles in The Times and other papers in thinking that this had better be forgotten, but I do not think that it is going to be forgotten. Throughout Western civilisation there is going to be continual protest against what
1142
the most reverend Primate called the misuse and compromise by this man of a great and distinguished office. I think that unless some solution can be found in future, both the Church and the Government will be subjected to considerable criticism from many quarters, including those across the Atlantic.
7.29 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, I am afraid that history is about to repeat itself: the Duke of Bedford is going to say things which will cause many in this audience to desire that he "be no longer heard." I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, may be under some kind of misapprehension on perhaps a minor point. I read through the Dean's speeches, but I could not find in them any reflection on British troops, although he certainly gave it to be understood that he considered the Americans had been employing bacteriological warfare. It was suggested by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury that the Dean should not reach conclusions without first hearing both sides. That is very wise and excellent advice, always assuming that he is allowed full facilities for hearing both sides. But do not the majority of your Lordships and other ordinary people constantly come to pretty strong conclusions, especially over Communist countries, when you have heard only one side?
The Dean was not speaking primarily because of his own convictions and the results of his personal investigations. He was conveying to the Churches of this country a message of protest given to him by a very large body of Christian Churches and organisations of China. Anybody who knows anything about Churches in far-off lands is aware that there is no more honourable and respected body than the Christian Churches of China. It was suggested that these Churches are being persecuted. Locally, I do not doubt, that is true. But what one has to remember, and what people continually forget, is that in a country as large as China anything can be locally true. I am convinced, from information given me by reliable people, that to-day in China there is both persecution and freedom, side by side, no doubt depending largely on the character of the local Communist officials.

1143
No person who is not mentally perverse can read the list of the signatories to that protest, and see the positions which they occupy, without realising that here the Dean has something of considerable weight. The signatories include members of the Roman Catholic, Baptist, Methodist and Congregational Churches of the Salvation Army, the Y.M.C.A., the Y.W.C.A. and many other religious organisations. Several hundred people have signed, including Bishops, the General Secretary of the Y.W.C.A., the Chairman of the National Christian Council of China, the Chairman of the China Baptist Council, the Secretary of the National Committee of the Y.M.C.A., the General Secretary of the Central Office of the Anglican Church, the Chairman of the Pekin Church Federation and the Pastor of the American Board Mission: also a Professor of the National Nankai University, together with some prominent medical men and members of hospital staffs.
Moreover, this protest was not given to the Dean under the instructions of the Chinese Communist Government. It was quite a spontaneous affair, got up during the course of his visit within the space of a few days: and when he had a personal interview with Mao Tse-tung the latter was unaware that this protest had been made, and was rather interested. Moreover, these representatives of the Christian Churches did not rely on official information, but sent their own representatives. They state that the Reverend Wang Tzu-chung of the Peking Congregational Church went to Korea and North-East China as a representative of the Chinese religious bodies, and saw the various germ-laden insects dropped by the U.S. armed forces, as well as the shells of the containers carrying the insects. Many Christian Chinese doctors have seen the germ-disseminating insects and other carriers spread by the American forces. The Dean records that at a conference the Reverend Sun Peng-shi, a minister of the Church of Christ in China, told him that he had found in his own garden, on the snow, after an American raid, strange insects unknown in the locality, at a season when it is unusual for insects to appear. I need hardly tell your Lordships that any naturalist is aware that you do not find normal insects walking about on the snow
1144
in the middle of the winter. Moreover, one of the investigators was Madame Tsi Teh-chuen, the widow of the well-known Chinese Christian General Feng.
I have also read the reports, or alleged reports, of the admissions of captured American airmen. Normally, one would regard such statements with the most profound suspicion. We all know how easily they can be faked, or obtained by torture and similar means. But, making every allowance—and it has to be a very generous allowance for this—parts of those statements are quite impressive. It would have been perfectly easy for the Communist authorities to get intimidated airmen to say that they had dropped bombs carrying germ-laden insects and other things on different places. But it would not have been so easy for them to invent and forge the immense amount of technical detail, given in an extraordinarily natural way, which those airmen are claimed to have given when they described "hush-hush" lectures which they attended on germ warfare. If they are fakes, they are uncommonly clever ones. Moreover, there are certain interesting features about them. They contain irrelevant details, which are usually the hallmark of genuineness. Those who drew up these reports also point out that some of the statements made must be mistakes, due to the lack of scientific knowledge on the part of the airmen. Certain insects which, they claim, carried certain germs could not, in fact, have carried such germs, though perhaps other insects could have done so.
The end of these documents is also rather interesting. It contains an alleged expression of regret by the airmen for having acted as the tools of capitalist Wall Street in injuring citizens of the People's Government of China. Here the style is entirely different, and we drop into familiar Communist propaganda. It looks very much to me as if the Communist authorities, having got some really weighty evidence, could not resist the temptation to "paint the lily" by adding some of the usual Communist stuff. Certainly, anybody clever enough to fake the impressive first part would also have been clever enough not to spoil his work by this very crude ending.
A very natural question which has rather been hinted at this afternoon is: Why did the Communist Government

1145
refuse an impartial inspection? With regard to the Swiss Red Cross, as soon as the Communist refusal to allow inspection was known, a very anti-Communist friend of mine said: "There you are. What have you to say to that?" I replied: "On the face of it, it looks bad for the Communists, as though they fear a fair inquiry; but I want to hear both sides." Having heard both sides, I think that here, at any rate, the Communist Government have some reason. They point out, to begin with, that the Swiss Red Cross, though it operates internationally, is not an international body. They also point out that during the last war the Red Cross reported on Nazi concentration camps and said that it could not find much wrong with them. Personally, I think it is possible that in this matter the organisation may not have been inaccurate in regard to those camps which it visited at the time when it visited them—which, of course, is not to say that it would have been accurate in respect of all camps at all times. But if your Lordships, in your zeal for German rearmament have not already forgotten what you used to say and think about Nazi concentration camps, you may, I think, have some sympathy with the Communist Government in feeling that an organisation which could report so favourably upon them was not likely to make a very competent research elsewhere.
They also object to the Swiss Red Cross because it reported favourably on the screening operations on Koje Island at a period when, as has now become obvious, owing to conditions there no efficient screening could possibly have taken place. They also object to the fact that the officials of the Swiss Red Cross, working in Korea, wear the United States uniform and submit to United States military law, conditions which the Quakers have been unable to accept. When Monica Felton made her complaint of the treatment of civilians by American troops, the Swiss Red Cross said that it was not within their competence to examine the ill-treatment of civilians. When Mr. Dean Acheson later told them to investigate they were, however, willing to do so. Whether the Communist authorities are willing to accept other really neutral investigation appears to be somewhat in dispute. It has been claimed that they have asserted their willingness, and have
1146
even invited certain British scientists to make an inspection, although possibly because they have been connected with the Government they have not felt at liberty to do so. On the other hand it has also been stated that they have refused offers of impartial inquiry by investigators other than the Swiss Red Cross. Their reasons for refusal, however, I do not know. I do agree with the noble Lord that it is most important that, whether the American Government altogether agree or not, we should press and do everything possible to promote a really impartial inquiry. Some of your Lordships may have read in The Times a few days ago what I thought was an extremely fair and reasonable letter on this question by Professor Levy. He suggested that perhaps India might be entrusted with an impartial investigation.
In regard to this whole matter, I would remind your Lordships—as I did not very long ago—of the very great need for avoiding unconscious hypocrisy and an "ostrich" policy. Already we and the Americans have given our blessing to the use of atomic and napalm bombs, instruments of war every hit as devilish as, and in my opinion more devilish than, germ warfare. Moreover, we and they have departments investigating germ warfare, and presumably they do not work for fun.
LORD STRABOLGI: Would the noble Duke forgive me? I do not want to spoil his case, but if he will allow me to say so, all nations must keep up an anti-germ warfare department just as they keep up an anti-gas department. That does not mean to say that they are going to use it. They must know what can be clone in order that defences may be prepared.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I appreciate the noble Lord's point. But I have certainly gained the impression that more than purely defensive measures are being investigated. However, this is all very "hush-hush" and we may have to keep an open mind on that question. I should also add that those who on the plea of military necessity, use these very diabolical instruments of war, may also—I do not say they will—under the stress of military necessity make inaccurate statements about them. I would remind your Lordships that when the crime of dropping an atom bomb on a Japanese city was committed, the excuse was given

1147
that it was necessary to save the lives of American soldiers. Subsequently, however, it was established that the Japanese had been making inquiries as to the surrender terms which the Allies would accept. The statement, therefore, that the bomb had to be dropped to save the lives of American troops was a false statement. More than that, some years ago I attended a Conference at Oxford addressed by some very distinguished atomic scientists. They told us, among other things, that when the dropping of the bomb was under contemplation certain persons in America suggested that before this was done Japanese representatives should be invited to witness the destructive effects of the dropping of the bomb on an uninhabited place. This humane and reasonable suggestion was, however, turned down by the American Government who, we were told, seemed to feel that the dropping of a bomb on the city would so terrify the world that in future no one would dare to embark on war. Subsequent history has indeed given its terrible comment on this supreme example of doing evil that good may come.
I should like now to say a word or two about the Dean himself. I happen to know him, not very intimately, but I do know him personally, and he is one of those people whom it is eminently desirable to know personally before you pass severe judgment upon them. All who know him personally do not doubt his sincerity. Moreover, most of them—at least, those that I know personally—while they may think that he is quite partial in some of his judgments, do not consider him in the ordinary sense a fool or as one who speaks inadvisedly. He has been attacked severely in this House for his partiality to Communism. But your Lordships have to remember that it is folly to pretend, after all the reliable, impartial evidence we have now had from the Quaker delegation and other people, that everything in Communist countries is evil. In Communist countries there is good and evil, and in democratic countries there is good and evil. There can be no peace in the world until one-sided fools on both sides realise the good, as well as the evil, on the other side, and the evil as well as the good on their side. When a person like the Dean tries to
1148
draw the attention of his fellow-countrymen to the good on the other side and to the shortcomings on his own side, he is performing a Christian service of reconciliation, no matter how unpopular the task may be, because the essence of Christianity is to see good, in so far as you can reasonably see it, and make the best of your enemies and potential enemies, as well as your friends. I must confess that for quite a long period, though I never doubted the Dean's sincerity, I too felt that he had been badly led "up the garden path" by Communist propaganda and by Communists. Some months ago, however, rather unexpectedly, I met him again. I sat next to him at dinner and later heard him address a large and representative London audience, almost exclusively composed of non-Communists, and later deal very ably with many searching questions. After that experience I found that I had to modify some of my views very considerably.
The question has been discussed of the Dean's loyalty and duties. The Dean's first loyalty is to God and to what he believes to be the truth, and his duty is to tell it in the service of Christ in the ministry of reconciliation. His duty to the State, and even his duty to the Church of England, is merely a secondary matter. I realise that there are complications here. I sympathise with the most reverent Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and also with the noble Lord, Lord Ammon. But the problem of a State Church is something apart from the Dean's personal duty to God. I myself some time ago left the Church, partly because it was a State Church and partly because, in my opinion, it was a warmongering Church. I felt that in either capacity it was being disloyal to Christ. But there are some people who feel that, even if they disagree very strongly with the body of which they are a member, they should stay within it and try to reveal to it what they believe to be the truth. Certainly the Church—that is to say, the true Church of Jesus Christ—can be brought into disrepute only if it does things which are disloyal to Christ and unworthy in the sight of God. The duty of the true Church, like the Dean's duty, is to God. It is not to agree with the State in all its political views on any occasion when it may choose very strongly to express them.
7.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, after listening to the speech of the noble Duke I was reminded, I must say, of the remark attributed to the late Mr. Balfour, as he then was, in addressing in another place an opponent after his opponent had sat down. He said:
"Much of what the right honourable gentleman has just said is true, and much of what the right honourable gentleman has just said is trite. Unfortunately, what was true was also trite, and what was not trite was not true."
I am left in much the same position by the speech of the noble Duke.
In this matter we are, I think, dealing with two cognate and distinct problems. There is the political problem, fundamentally ridiculous, that people are in danger of treating seriously; and there is the religious problem, fundamentally serious, which people are in danger of treating with levity. The political problem is a ridiculous one. I frankly cannot agree with my noble friend, Lord Winterton, in thinking that the Dean is a gift to Communist propaganda; I think that that is the greatest possible mistake. The Dean with his ridiculous vanity, his fantastic Press conferences and his grotesque rolls of papers is a gift to the comedian. He has succeeded in doing what more serious investigation would certainly have failed to do: he has succeeded in impressing upon the common man the fundamental improbability of the charges which have been made and the total absence of evidence with which they are supported. If he had been in the pay of the United Nations he could hardly have done that job more thoroughly.
EARL WINTERTON: Perhaps I may be allowed to amend my point and to say that the Dean is a joke—but he is not regarded as a joke behind the Iron Curtain or on the Continent.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I agree with my noble friend. Behind the Iron Curtain the Dean is sometimes mistaken for the Archbishop, and in any event he is associated with Canterbury. That is true and it is lamentable. But in answer to the argument I am bound to say this. I do not so far despair of the intelligence of our Christian brethren behind the Iron Curtain as to suppose that they do not know full well that Judas Iscariot was
1150
not the last Christian to betray his Master. I think they will know how to assess the Dean according to the coin with which, unfortunately, they are more familiar than we are.
The plea that we should invoke the power of the State to dismiss the Dean, promulgated most forcibly in another place, is not so much misguided as it is impossible. Deans are appointed by letters patent, and I think it has been from time almost immemorial considered, from the terms in which such letters patent have been couched, that they cannot be reversed. The appointment is not accompanied, like that of Ministers of the Crown, with a proviso that it shall be during Her Majesty's pleasure. Nor is it accompanied with a proviso which exists in the case of the appointment of judges, that they hold office so long as they behave themselves properly. The Deans are appointed by irrevocable letters patent, and they cannot be got rid of by any action of the State. It is wrong to invoke the power of the State; the Church of England is far too Erastian already and it should not be made more so by demands that it should dismiss from office an ecclesiastical dignitary for his activities. Indeed, much harm can be done by these frequent appeals to the State to dismiss the Dean of Canterbury. It leads to the impression that there is something that the State can do about it. Only this morning I read in my paper that seventy innocent American clergymen had sent a telegram to Her Majesty asking her to dismiss the Dean of Canterbury. I am sure they would not have done that if they bad not read on the Order Paper of another place a request asking for the same thing. I think that these attempts to invoke temporal power in these matters are a mistake.
But I think the religious problem cannot be so easily ridden off. I cannot agree with the most reverend Primate that the Dean does not cause scandal to the Church of England: I think he does; not so much because he is a Communist but because he is a clown, and we cannot afford to have clowns in gaiters in the Church of England. Things are far too serious with religion for us to be able to afford to have people whose idiotic conduct causes them to be laughed at. Let us face the facts. For the great mass of the people the Dean is the biggest

1151
laugh since the Rector of Stiffkey in his barrel, and it is intolerable that the Church should be made a mockery by the antics of an egocentric dotard.
This matter of dealing with high dignitaries of the Church is not one that can be ridden off easily by pleas for free speech, or even by the noble sentiments expressed by the most reverend Primate. The fact is that it was not the Church who appointed the Dean of Canterbury: it was the late Mr. Ramsay Macdonald; and he was appointed not because he was a Christian but because he was a Socialist. That is known to everybody who is willing to talk about the realities of the patronage of the Church. I am a Churchman myself—perhaps not a very good one—but I do find it intolerable that those whom I was taught in my Catechism to regard as my "pastors and masters" should be appointed in this way. What is worse is that, having got them there, the Church cannot even get rid of them—nor can those who appointed them—however remote from the realities of Christian life they are. The Houses of Parliament are the real criminals. Lord Winterton quoted the phrase used by the most reverend Primate to the effect that the Dean had "misused and compromised his office." Despite this he cannot be got rid of by the Church—as he could if he were the President of the Methodist Conference. This is primarily the fault of Parliament.
I remember that in 1947, in another place, when the first of two Measures (to which the most reverend Primate referred) was introduced, a handful of Members was assiduously lobbied by a small ecclesiastical minority in an attempt to get the House to reject the Measure, on the spurious ground that in some fantastic way it could be used as a means of depriving aged clergymen with violent political opinions of their livings. And they very nearly succeeded. The result was that when the next Measure came up for consideration by the Houses of Parliament, an appeasing clause was introduced, excepting the political and social activities, however extravagant, of its dignitaries, from control by the Church. Now, whereas I am wholeheartedly opposed to the suggestion that the State should punish or dismiss high dignitaries of the Church for political or social activities, I think it is the least measure
1152
of freedom that the Church can claim, that if it is not allowed to appoint its own dignitaries it should at least be allowed to get rid of them if it does not want to keep them. But that it is not allowed to do. The people who have prevented it are the two Houses of Parliament, and in the present case we have an example of the results of a system which could be tolerated only if it worked no harm in practice: and that the Dean's case shows is not the case.
LORD STRABOLGI: I think the noble Viscount is a little wrong there. The Church can get rid of its dignitaries on certain grounds—for instance, heresy and unbecoming conduct, et cetera.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am perfectly well aware of that. I only said that it could not get rid of them if it wanted to. That is what I am complaining of. You can have it one way or the other. You can make the Church a sort of Civil Service, in which case the civil servants can be got rid of by the State, but the thing has no spiritual reality at all. Or, the Church is a free, spiritual community—and then, if you must appoint its high dignitaries, you might allow the Church to get rid of them if it does not want them. That can be done in every other religious community in the land, but not in the Church of England. It is precisely the situation to which the noble Lord opposite drew attention that I was complaining of.
There are a few questions which remain to be asked about the Dean which, I think, are worthy of an answer. What has he really done for Christianity in the lands which he has visited? That is not a political question; it is a religious question. Has he visited the Christians in prison? Has he made provision for their necessities out of his ample stipend or out of the funds with which he is provided by his Communist hosts? Has he protested to the Communists about their atheism? Has he himself in foreign lands offered an unmistakable and sincere Christian witness? Those are questions which Churchmen are entitled to ask of their high dignitaries and, though I agree with the Archbishop that in many respects one wishes the Dean would not pretend he is a Christian at any time, we are saddled with the fact that he is a high dignitary of the Church. We are entitled to an answer.

1153
I accept it from the most reverend Primate that the Dean has never denied the existence of God or any other Christian doctrine. Nevertheless I can remember nothing which he has said at any time in the last twenty years which implies that he believes in God or any Christian doctrine. I myself am not impressed by arguments that Deans of Canterbury must necessarily not be atheists unless they expressly deny the existence of God. It is, moreover, for consideration whether and how far the Dean has observed the Canons of 1603. If he has not observed them, he is guilty of an ecclesiastical offence, and even under the mutilated law as it exists at the moment we can get rid of him by appropriate ecclesiastical proceedings. The Canons of 1603 are very onerous.
I should be happy to dispense with his attendance in Canterbury Cathedral altogether, but I do not see that we should necessarily overlook any peccadilloes which he may have committed against the strict letter of the ecclesiastical law. After all, we got rid of Mrs. Monica Felton, not because she was a Communist but because she did not attend to her duties in one of the new towns. She thought that her Communism was more important. I do not see how, if, as we are led to believe, the Dean of Canterbury occupies an important position, he should be allowed to spend so much of his time abroad instead of attending to the duties of his office. These things should surely be within the discretion of the Church. They are not so, in accordance with the present law, except within the very limited measure given by the two Acts of 1840 and 1892. That, surely, only illustrates the evil which we are discussing this evening, which is a serious one—namely, the plight to which the Church of England has been reduced by Parliament. I must say that if we are in danger of taking the Dean too seriously from the political angle, we should also be making a mistake if we allowed the mockery which this vain and ridiculous old man must excite to blind our eyes to the dangerous plight to which the Church of England has fallen.
8.5 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I should like us to get back to the Question which is on the Order Paper. It is:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is any legal action that can be taken
1154
against Dr. Hewlett Johnson, Dean of Canterbury, for his alleged statements reflecting on the conduct of British troops liable to create ill-feeling between Her Majesty's subjects and those of other nations; and to bring the Established Church into contempt and disrepute."
I have been impelled to intervene in this debate because there are two sections of opinion. There is one section which is of the opinion that the Dean of Canterbury can "get away with it" because he is a high dignitary of the Church. On the other hand, I have come across two or three people, highly placed, in Yorkshire who are inclined to believe that there is something in the germ warfare allegation because the Dean of Canterbury as a dignitary of the Church has made the accusation. When my noble friend put into his Question "British troops," I wondered whether any legal action could have been taken in Korea, if "Lance-Corporal Hewlett Johnson" (if there had been such a person) had made himself a nuisance in the barracks by spreading gloom and despondency and performing actions prejudicial to good discipline. I came to the conclusion that the men in the canteen would have said that he was "crackers," and they would have made allowances for him because, on the face of it, he seemed to be a very nice sort of chap.
LORD STRABOLGI: If I may interrupt, I should like to ask a question.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD STRABOLGI: I beg your Lordships' pardon? This is a debate. This is the House of Lords.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: We are well aware of that.
LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to ask a question on something which has been puzzling me throughout the debate. I have since been looking at the document issued by the Dean of Canterbury. What are the attacks on the British troops which are complained of?
LORD CALVERLEY: There have been 3,000 casualties since we started this armistice business. There are 3,000 British casualties, and also they are part of twenty nations who have made a great contribution, unexampled in the history of this world, to try to fight against what was called "aggression."
LORD STRABOLGI: We all agree with that.
LORD CALVERLEY: My noble friend says that we all agree with that. The reason I bring in the British troops is because for nine and a half years I had the experience of listening to 2,000 complaints. Let us suppose that those fellows are "grousing" at this apocryphal Lance-Corporal Hewlett Johnson, and the company commander has got to know about it. The lance-corporal has been arrested and tried and given six months in the "glasshouse" because he was guilty of bringing contempt upon Her Majesty's uniform and being absent without leave. That is what has happened, and that is what has been happening. He would have been dismissed from the Forces on coming out of the detention barracks because he brought contempt on the Queen's uniform. My point is this. In going about, in his symbolic garments, abroad, all over Europe, in Moscow and in Pekin, the Dean has brought contempt upon the Church to which he belongs. That is another reason why we should try to investigate what he has been trying to do, to see what can be done with this man who has brought Christ's Church at Canterbury into disrepute. That is the serious issue, and I wonder if anything can be done.
I am scrapping the few notes I have made because I do not want to detain your Lordships too long. I believe that when Mr. Vyshinsky saw the Dean in what he would call "those funny garments"—I refer to the knee breeches, the gaiters and the rest of it—and when they were explained to him, he thought that they had high propaganda value. I do not know whether the Church has any power in this respect, but when the Dean goes overseas again I wonder whether he might be made to go in flannel "bags" and a tweed coat, thereby puncturing his propaganda value. What can we do? We cannot stop this man from talking, because we believe in freedom of speech. I wish only that he would go to Hyde Park Corner, either in his "glad rags" or in his flannel "bags," and expound his doctrines there, because I am sure he would need police protection; or he might kick up such a "shindy" that he could be charged before a magistrates' court—this, is a bit of knowledge of the law which I have gained simply through a little experience in
1156
magistrates' courts—with being a public mischief and causing a breach of the peace. I spent a couple of days thinking what penalty could be imposed. This being a first offence, the only thing a magistrate could do would be to bind him over for six months, in the sum of £5, to be of good behaviour. That is about all we could do with him, and he would want to put on his martyr's crown.
My Lords, I think there ought to be a restatement of the matter. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester, himself I believe a former Dean of Canterbury, speaking the other day in Canterbury, said that this business has been "blurred" somewhat. We have gone on now for two years. There is a lot of misrepresentation in regard to what we are trying to do in Korea, and I think there should be a restatement, not so much by politicians but by men of the calibre of Dr. George Bell, stating, on behalf of the Council of the Christian Churches, that we are not in Korea simply for the fun of being there but because we have been driven there by China and Russia. I think that is necessary because of the amount of criticism from people who suppose that the Dean is right. Only yesterday I said to one such person, "You want to get hold of the White Paper and see what is happening. Then you will see what the United Nations have been trying to do."
In 1948, when the most reverend Primate introduced from the Church Assembly a Measure which related to Church discipline, I intervened to ask him to be patient with what I called his "thorn in the flesh." He has used that expression this afternoon. He has shown infinite patience, and great Christian tolerance. It has been worth while having a debate like this to-day. I personally am grateful to my noble friend for asking his Question. We have had an opportunity of hearing not only speeches from laymen but also a most valuable contribution from the most reverend Primate. For that reason, I am glad the Question has been asked. I hope that some remedy may be found. It may be that he can be tried by his peers—that is, by the Canons of Canterbury Cathedral. Let the senior Canon take the chair. Let the Dean be

1157
asked to come along—I see an incredulous smile upon the most reverend Primate's face. I should like to be present to see what really would happen.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: He would be "fired" by the Canons, would he not?
LORD CALVERLEY: He could be fired from a cannon, but I think that is too drastic. I do not wish to go as far as that. But I think the Chapter might meet, and might be able to hold an impartial inquiry. Of course, if the decision of that inquiry went against the Dean he would say that it was not impartial, but otherwise. I have spoken long enough—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD CALVERLEY: I am sorry the noble Earl should say "Hear, hear!" I have been here since half-past two waiting for this debate. However, I will not go on. I merely express my gratitude to my noble friend for bringing this Question before us, and to the most reverend Primate. I shall sit down now in order that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, may speak.
8.17 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I wish to say only comparatively few words in winding up this debate, for there is, I think, very little that I can add to what has already been so well said this afternoon. I am not at all surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, put down his Question on the recent antics of the Dean of Canterbury. In answer to Lord Teviot I might say in passing that I am afraid I cannot tell him who financed the Dean's trip. I even doubt whether I could get that information, and I would suggest to the noble Lord that he should himself approach the Dean, who I am sure would be delighted to satisfy his curiosity. But there is one thing at any rate on which I am certain. The vagaries of that dignitary have caused the strongest indignation among all sections of opinion in this country. That is evident from the remarks of noble Lords in every part of this House. Indeed, it is certainly not an edifying spectacle to see one of the great dignitaries of the Church of England crossing the world to pay a visit to the enemies of
1158
Christianity and then, apparently without any real effort to verify the facts, lending the authority of his great position to completely baseless charges against our allies. So far as one can see he seems to have swallowed the Chinese allegations whole. He seems not only to have no doubt at all, but never to have been prepared to have doubts.
In the document which has been circulated to your Lordships, to which reference has been made to-day—and I thought the circulation of that document was a somewhat unusual procedure—he quotes evidence from Chinese doctors and Divines, who under a Communist régime can hardly be regarded as being entirely impartial. I would say to the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, who I am afraid has left us, out who seemed to take very much the same view as the Dean, that such evidence as that in a country such as China is to-day, can hardly have been expressed entirely through free will.
There must have been, inevitably, a measure of duress about it, and that we all of us know perfectly well. The same applies to the "confessions" of the two young American airmen to which he referred. One wonders how those "confessions" were extorted. The Dean quoted all that evidence provided by his hosts, but he made no reference at all, as was pointed out by the most reverend Primate, to the American offer to agree to a full inquiry on the spot under the International Red Cross, which is an authority whose integrity is absolutely unquestioned throughout the world He made no attempt to explain why the Chinese Government so curtly rejected that offer. And yet, to any objective mind, that refusal to accept the Red Cross is really conclusive; proof that this elaborately fabricated case would be unable to stand up to impartial scrutiny. Yet the Dean never mentioned it. To him, it appears, the Communists must always be right.
I will say for the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, that he did not shirk that issue. He said that the International Red Cross was not an international body. No doubt, the International Red Cross is situated in Switzerland; it must be situated somewhere; but it is, I should have thought, universally recognised in every civilised country to be absolutely

1159
above suspicion. It is one of the most distinguished of all international bodies, and I could not help thinking, as I listened to the noble Duke—I am sorry that he is not here now—that he appeared to me to be just a gramophone repeating the ordinary propaganda that comes out to us day after day from Moscow. We can hear it any night sitting by our own firesides—not coming to your Lordships' House at all, but merely turning a knob. We, here, know the noble Duke. We are used to him. He dearly loves to be in a minority of one. That is really his spiritual home. But if on this occasion he is able to take so tolerant a view of the Dean of Canterbury, I am afraid that many of us cannot. We cannot believe that the régime which the Dean seems quite happy in supporting is compatible with the teaching of Christ. In such circumstances, it is evidently right and proper that we in this House should make it clear at the earliest possible moment that we entirely repudiate his irresponsible and most reprehensible statements. That we have done this afternoon, and I am sure we are all immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, for giving us the opportunity.
But the noble Lord's Question, of course, goes a good deal further than that. He asks whether there is any legal action that can be taken about the Dean in view of his obvious unsuitability to occupy his present high position in the Church. He thinks that some steps should be taken to prevent his continuing to be in a position where—to use the noble Lord's own words—he can "bring the Established Church into contempt and disrepute." That view has been supported, and very naturally supported, by other speakers this afternoon, and I must confess that in the first flush of my indignation I tended to share that view myself. But further consideration, I say frankly, has led me to modify that opinion It is not for me, as a humble member of the laity, to enter into these specifically ecclesiastical matters which were spoken of with great force, and I thought in an extremely interesting manner, by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, this afternoon. They are a matter, I should have thought, for the Church rather than for me.
1160
Returning to the actual subject of the Question, I think it is evident that in any case, whatever we may think about his suitability or unsuitability for his present position, there is no legal action that the Church, at any rate, can take as things are at present. The Dean has committed no offence such as heresy which would make him amenable to Church discipline. He has not been drunk in the pulpit, he has not pawned the church vessels, he has not been guilty of flagrant immorality. He has not committed any offence of that type. He has, indeed, I should have thought, been guilty of "unbecoming conduct" in another sense, which one might have imagined, if one had not heard the Archbishop's speech this afternoon, would have brought him within the provisions of the Church Dignitaries (Retirement) Measure of 1948. But it seems—if I understood the most reverend Primate rightly—that we in Parliament, in our wisdom, decided that the term "unbecoming conduct" should not embrace opinions and activities of a political character. Of course, that excludes the Dean entirely from the scope of the measure.
And if the Church cannot deal with him it is extremely doubtful whether the State can do so either under the existing law. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already told the House, inquiries are being made and one is quite certain that we must await the result of those inquiries and make whatever decision may be necessary when the time comes. I am bound to say—and I am here speaking personally—that I remain, frankly, doubtful whether a prosecution in a case of this kind would not do more harm than good. That is my personal view. At any rate, we must await the results of the inquiries and see what they are. But if the proposal is, or should be, that special legislation should be brought in to deal with this particular case, I want to make it absolutely clear now that the Government could not contemplate that.
Of course, the Dean's conduct has been deplorable. It has profoundly shocked not only Churchmen but, I think, the whole broad mass of public opinion throughout this country. For, after all, extreme vanity and boundless gullibility are always an unattractive combination. But I should have thought that it was the Dean's own reputation which had mainly

1161
suffered—and here I agree with the Archbishop—not that of the Church of England. I really cannot believe, if I may say so with deference to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that any objective observer could seriously attempt to tar the Church with the Dean's brush. And if, indeed, there had been any doubt on that point, I should have thought that it would be entirely removed by the speech of the most reverend Primate this afternoon.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Marquess unnecessarily, but I think he has attributed to me a view which I did not actually express, and I should therefore like to say so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understood the noble Viscount to say that what the Dean had done had inflicted considerable injury upon the Church.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I said that it had caused scandal in the Church, but that was because he was a clown, not because he was a Communist. We cannot afford to have clowns in gaiters.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The fact remains that the suggestion was that he was doing harm to the Church. That is what I said. I do not care whether it was said that he was doing it as a Communist or as a clown. But I do not think it has done harm to the Church. I think the speech of the most reverend Primate, if there was any feeling of that kind, should have removed it. He could not have made it clearer that he repudiated in most explicit terms the actions and opinions of the Dean. In such circumstances as that, surely, to regard the Dean as a serious menace is to lose our sense of proportion. He is not a menace. If I may use rather frank words, he is merely a foolish old man, puffed up with conceit, hankering after publicity—not an attractive sight, but certainly not a threat to our institutions.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, may I, with the greatest deference, ask the noble Marquess a question? Is it not rather a dangerous argument to say of a man who has committed such an offence that because he is foolish we shall not deal with him?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I thought that up to now we were putting the argument on the basis that he has not committed an offence. At the same time, I think in a case of this kind, where it is a question of political statement, the question of how far he constitutes a danger does enter into the matter. At least, I should have thought so: I do not know. I am only expressing my view. I feel that to alter the law of the land to take action against a matter of this calibre is rather like taking a steam-hammer to crack a nut. Indeed, it might have a bad effect. It might give ammunition to Communist propaganda by lending colour to the suggestion that he was being; persecuted for his beliefs. I am quite certain that, if it became common currency in other countries, it would do more harm than anything the Dean is likely to say, and I should have thought it was the very thing which the Communists would prefer.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Marquess but I think he mis-states the case. It would be trying the Dean for his beliefs. What else could we be trying him for? The noble Marquess said we might give the impression of trying the Dean for his beliefs, but that is what we should be trying him for.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know: we have no; had our report yet. But: if it turned out that he had spread absolutely false statements to the detriment of his country and that there was no foundation for the allegations he made, I should not have thought that that was purely a matter of expressing a political opinion. However, I am not going to pontificate on that subject.
There is another point which I think I ought to put to your Lordships. If we brought in legislation of this character, I should have thought it would be difficult so to frame it that it would be, as it were, sui generis. I should have thought that almost inevitably such legislation would create a precedent which might be used for far less justifiable interferences with individual liberties. Indeed, it might encourage that type of witch-hunt which to our great regret we have seen in other countries increasingly. That is what the broad common sense of this country has always avoided, at any

1163
rate within recent centuries—if I may say so, with all deference, to the noble Earl, Lord Winterton.
EARL WINTERTON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess at this late hour, but I was talking purely of the future. I think it is the duty of the Government to consider whether, in the case of what might be described as undeclared war, the law of treason and sedition is as strong as it was.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I assure the noble Earl that we will take into account everything that he has said: he speaks with great experience. All I would say is that I should regret anything which was likely to facilitate a witch-hunt. I think that is a thing which we in this country have always loathed. As I have said, we cannot regard the Dean as a danger. That is my view. He is not guilty of treason—at least, we hear from the Attorney-General that there is no prima facie case of treason in the inquiries which we have made. I would point out that this is no case of a rather obscure legal point. It is a very simple point. There is no evidence—and that is a point we can all understand.
Although I agree entirely with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, and by other noble Lords, as to the Dean's conduct, and although I find it just as exasperating as it has seemed to them that he should have behaved, and is behaving, in this way, I feel bound to advise the House not to allow itself to be carried away by its very natural resentment, or to take steps which might well create a most undesirable precedent for the future. As I have said, the real truth is that the Dean is not dangerous: he is merely contemptible.
1164
And the course most consistent with the dignity of this House and of this country is to treat him with the contempt he most surely deserves.

CITY OF LONDON (GUILD CHURCHES) BILL
Reported, with Amendments.

SCOTTISH AMICABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIGHTON) BILL
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT YARMOUTH) BILL
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (SEAHAM HARBOUR) BILL
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (HERNE BAY) BILL
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (KING'S LYNN) BILL
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (MINEHEAD) BILL
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before nine o'clock.