Sitting of 28 July 1952

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  CHESHIRE BRINE PUMPING (COMPENSATION FOR SUBSIDENCE) BILL [Lords]
  Verbal Amendments made to the Bill; Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRACTION BILL [Lords]
  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, with Amendments.

  LLANELLY DISTRICT TRACTION BILL [Lords]
  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, with Amendments.

  KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered;
  Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  (Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified) Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  DUNDEE HARBOUR AND TAY FERRIES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  ALBANIA (BRITISH CLAIM)
  Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any part of the sum awarded by the International Court to Britain in connection with the death of British sailors in the Corfu Channel has yet been secured from Albania.
  The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): No, Sir.
  Mr. Reid: Does not this show that the victims of international atrocities are debarred by the Charter system from taking the law into their own hands while the culprits can escape with impunity because there is no real sanction behind the judgment of the International Court?
  Mr. Lloyd: As far as the question of compensation for these victims is concerned, we are seeking to obtain some compensation for them by some other means.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how far the work of the arbitrator has gone and what prospect there is of his giving a decision by August, as originally intended?
  Mr. Lloyd: We still hope that he will give a decision in August or September.
  Air Commodore Harvey: As this matter has been dragging on for a number of years, if the Albanians have some merchant ships would it not be a good thing to detain one or two of them until they pay up?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am told that Albania is in the unfortunate, or fortunate, position of not having any overseas assets at all.

  BROADCASTS TO CHINA
  Major Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many hours per day broadcasting is done in the Chinese language; from which stations; with what objects; and why there is no proper liaison with the United Nations or the United States Governments, both of which also broadcast in Chinese.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the output of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The Corporation broadcasts daily for 30 minutes in Kuoyu, that is to say, standard Chinese, and for 15 minutes in Cantonese.
  These transmissions are radiated from the United Kingdom and relayed by the British Far Eastern Broadcasting Service, Singapore. Radio Hong Kong also relays the news bulletins in both languages. The purpose of the broadcasts is to provide a balanced and objective service of news and information in the main Chinese dialects.
  I cannot accept the implication contained in the last part of the Question. Distance clearly makes it impossible to maintain close day-to-day contact on matters concerning programmes with the United Nations and with the "Voice of America" Radio Headquarters, both of which are in New York; but the B.B.C. does maintain liaison with the representatives of both these organisations in London.
  On questions of Far Eastern policy there are constant exchanges between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States.
  Major Beamish: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is considerable room for improvement in liaison and understanding between this country and other members of the United Nations and the United Nations itself so far as broadcasts to China are concerned? Would he please be good enough at any rate to consider whether there is room for improvement in the machinery?
  Mr. Lloyd: It would be very rash indeed to say that there is no room for improvement and I will certainly look into it.
  Sir W. Smithers: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that these broadcasts to China are monitored by an organisation who state that, in their opinion, there is much Communist propaganda in these broadcasts, which is encouraging our enemies in the Far East and making more difficult the task of our boys who are fighting in the cause of freedom?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am surprised to hear that, but if my hon. Friend will give me a specific extract from any of these broadcasts I will look into it.

  KOREA

    United Nations Bombs, China
    Major Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he has received regarding the bombs that have been dropped on Chinese territory by United Nations aeroplanes, by accident or design, since the outbreak of hostilities in Korea; and if he will give all available details.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Since the outbreak of the Korean conflict United Nations pilots have had strict instructions not to violate the Manchurian frontier. No bomb of any kind has been dropped on Chinese territory by aircraft operating under the United Nations Command.
    Major Beamish: Since the object of Communist propaganda about germ warfare is to deceive gullible people, in which it has been by no means ineffective, is it not important that the facts which my right hon. and learned Friend has just given should be made more widely known?
    Mr. Lloyd: I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend.

    British Prisoners (Protecting Power)
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the result of Her Majesty's Government's discussions with the Chinese Government for the appointment of a protecting Power in respect of British prisoners of war in North Korea.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As my hon. Friend told the House on 21st July, we are seeking clarification of the effect of the Chinese Government's recognition of the 1949 Geneva Convention. I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the result of our inquiries.
    Mr. Henderson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect to receive a reply this week, and, if so, would he consider making a statement before the House goes into Recess?
    Mr. Lloyd: Judging from previous experience, I should say that it is exceedingly unlikely that we will get an answer this week, but if we do I will consider what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested.

    Truce Talks
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what official information he has received from the Indian Government as to the progress of the talks in Peking between representatives of the Indian and Chinese Governments regarding the deadlock in the truce talks in Korea.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government have been in close touch with the Government of India with regard to the Korean armistice negotiations. I cannot, of course, divulge the substance of these discussions.
    Mr. Brockway: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the statements made by the Indian Ambassador in Peking and more particularly of the Prime Minister of India last Thursday, when he said:
    "We will be very happy to use our friendly contact with the Governments concerned in the furtherance of the settlement"?
    Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman respond to the suggestion by Mr. Nehru that he should act in that capacity?
    Mr. Lloyd: For a long time before those statements were made we had been making every possible use of the good offices of the Indian Government in this matter.
    Mr. J. Hudson: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman taken any step recently to let Mr. Nehru know that his efforts, particularly to get a settlement on the prisoner of war question, would receive support from this Government?
    Mr. Lloyd: I said that I would not divulge the substance of these discussions because they are confidential. I am quite certain, though, that the Prime Minister of India would have no objection to me saying that the answer for which the hon. Gentleman asks has repeatedly been given to Mr. Nehru.

    Germ Warfare Allegations
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as an alternative to the proposed impartial investigation by the International Committee of the Red Cross into the charge of germ warfare, Her Majesty's Government will propose an investigation
    1068
    by an impartial body to be appointed by the Government of India.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government would naturally give the fullest consideration to any proposals for a truly impartial investigation of these allegations. But, in view of the propagandist nature of the allegations, Her Majesty's Government feel it would be unsuitable for them to make any such suggestion to the Government of India, particularly when the Communists have already rejected all offers of impartial investigation.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we ought not to allow the Government of China to make these charges without taking every possible step to secure, or to propose, the setting up of an impartial body for the purpose of making these investigations, and that we ought not to let the matter go by default?
    Mr. Lloyd: We have already suggested more than once that these charges should be investigated by an impartial body. Once that is accepted in principle there will be no difficulty in getting an impartial body appointed, but until that has been accepted in principle I do not think it helps to suggest that some other Government should appoint an impartial body.
    Sir T. Moore: In any case, why should an international body such as the Red Cross, which is widely respected, be superseded by a national body? I cannot follow the point.
    Mr. Henderson: is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I am not asking for a national body to be appointed but an impartial international body, provided it is accepted by both sides?
    Mr. Lloyd: As soon as we receive any indication from the other side that they are prepared to have these matters investigated by an impartial body, we shall certainly act upon it.

  GERMANY (DEFENCE)
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent Her Majesty's Government are committed to the use of British troops to

  1069
  defend Germany in the event of an act of aggression against that country, in the absence of a German contribution to Western defence.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Until the Treaty establishing the European Defence Community comes into force, Her Majesty's Government are fully committed by the Tripartite Declaration of 19th September, 1950, to treat any attack against the German Federal Republic or Berlin from any quarter as an attack upon themselves. No time limit has been set to the validity of this Declaration, which is in no way dependent upon a German defence contribution.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does that apply to the United States?
  Mr. Lloyd: That is so.
  Mr. Shinwell: In the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, are the forces available for this purpose adequate?
  Mr. Lloyd: That is a very different matter from the Question on the Order Paper.

  EASTERN EUROPE AND CHINA (ARMED FORCES)
  Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will cause a White Paper to be published setting out the extent by which the armed forces of Hungary, Bulgaria and Roumania, now exceed those allowed to them under the peace treaties between those countries and Britain; the statements made by the British representive at the United Nations as to the size of the navies, air forces and armies of China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Poland and Czechoslovakia, when putting forward the recent British proposals for international disarmament; and the reply of the Soviet Government to the British disarmament proposals.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. As the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) stated on 25th July, 1951, the regular armed forces of Hungary, Bulgaria and Roumania considerably exceed the limits permitted under the Peace Treaties. I am not, however, in a position to give detailed figures.
  1070
  As regards the second and third parts of the Question, the texts of the British representative's statement and the Soviet replies are available in the Library of the House in the verbatim record of the 12th and subsequent meetings of the Disarmament Commission.
  Mr. Wyatt: Would it not be as well to put all this information together so that we may see in one document exactly what are the sizes of the armies, navies and air forces of the countries associated with Russia and China, against the fear of war from whom it is presumably that we are re-arming ourselves?
  Mr. Lloyd: A White Paper was issued, dated 28th May, on the first Report of the work of the Disarmament Commission. That will certainly be followed up by another White Paper when it reaches the conclusion of its task before the meeting of the General Assembly, and I will consider whether any useful purpose would be served by the information for which the hon. Gentleman asks.
  Mr. Shinwell: Why should there be any difficulty in giving information relating to the armed forces of the satellite countries, in view of the fact that there have been disclosures of the armed strength of Soviet Russia?
  Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of certain reasons why it is not always possible to disclose such information, but in the statement of 25th July, 1951, certain figures were given and we have no reason to believe that the strength of these armed forces falls below the figures there given.
  Mr. Wyatt: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that full information has already been given at one time or another about most of the countries mentioned in the Question? What I am asking is that it should all be collated and put into one document, so that we can see it all at once.
  Mr. Lloyd: I certainly think that a useful purpose might be served by following that suggestion, and I will consider it when the next White Paper is compiled with regard to the work of the Disarmament Commission.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: Since the statement of last July has there been any evidence of an increase in the size of these forces,

  1071
  and, if so, has any protest been made to the countries concerned?
  Mr. Lloyd: I cannot answer the first half of that question with certainty.

  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL DISPUTE
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, following the judgment of the International Court at The Hague, into what further discussions he now proposes to enter with the Persian Government with a view to arriving at a settlement.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government were prepared even before the judgment of the International Court to negotiate a settlement which would take into account all the rights and interests of the parties concerned. That is still their position.
  Mr. Henderson: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement published in the "Manchester Guardian" this morning by the new Persian Foreign Minister to the effect that he has every confidence that, provided there is good will, a settlement could be arrived at, and would the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least reciprocate those sentiments?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of the information to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers, and I think that the contingency which he envisages is covered by my answer.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: Since the International Court has now decided that this dispute is not a matter upon which they can adjudicate, is it not the duty of the Government to take the initiative in opening negotiations with the Persian Government to try to secure some method of resolving this unfortunate dispute?
  Mr. Lloyd: It depends whether the dispute to which the hon. Gentleman refers relates to the wrong which has been done by the Persian Government to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. On that matter the initiative has been taken to seek to settle it.
  Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the protection of British nationals and
  1072
  interests following the decision of the International Court of Justice and recent developments in Persia.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23rd July.
  Mr. Langford-Holt: While we are all happy that agreement satisfactory to both sides may soon be reached on this matter, may I ask whether, to prevent any unfortunate action being taken in any part of the world my right hon. and learned Friend would assure the House that the Government will take whatever action is possible to protect the interests and property of British citizens?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think that that point was dealt with very fully by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement.

  ANGLO-EGYPTIAN NEGOTIATIONS
  Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the state of negotiations between Egypt and the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would ask my hon. Friend to await a statement to be made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at the end of Questions.

  HON. G. ADAMS (DETENTION, NEW YORK)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Hon. Grantly Adams, C.M.G., a West Indian political and trade union leader, was detained recently in New York by the United States immigration authorities while on his way to an executive board meeting of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, holding a British passport with a valid United States visa endorsed "Foreign Government Official on Temporary Visit"; what representations he has made to the United States authorities regarding this incident; and what explanation he has received.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Ambassador asked the United States State Department to explain this

  1073
  incident. The State Department expressed deep regret that it should have occurred and attributed it to a misunderstanding. The United States Government sent messages of apology to Mr. Adams and to the Governor of Barbados.
  Mr. Driberg: While I am grateful for the last words of that reply, could the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how it is that there have been three similar misunderstandings in quite recent times, Mr. Norman Manley and Mr. Bustamente himself having experienced similar indignities?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am unable to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but in this case the United States Government have made a full apology. I understand that Mr. Adams is perfectly satisfied with it and I think that this incident might be allowed to rest there.

  MINISTRY OF FOOD

    Danish Cheese
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Food what were the reasons for the breakdown in the negotiations to purchase at least 5,000 tons of Cheddar-type cheese yearly from Denmark.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): There has been no breakdown. We were unable to take up an offer of a small quantity of cheese this year for currency reasons.
    Mr. Dodds: In view of the present microscopic ration cannot something else be done to get this cheese? Is not it a fact that the difference in price is very little?
    Dr. Hill: We would have wished to take this cheese, which amounted to between 1,000 and 2,000 tons, but we were unable to do so as we had not the right kind of money available for its purchase.

    Argentine Meat
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Food, in view of the expiration of the meat agreement with the Argentine, what arrangements have been made for the usual supply to continue until the new agreement is negotiated; and under what conditions the meat will be received.
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the Minister of Food whether he is now in a position to make a statement about the procurement of meat from the Argentine.
    Dr. Hill: We are discussing with the Argentine Government at the present moment whether shipments shall be resumed pending the negotiation of final arrangements for the current year of the Agreement. I can, obviously, say nothing at present about the terms.
    Mr. Dodds: Is not it a fact that the shipments are taking place and that they have been invoiced at a price to be established? In view of the fact that the Argentinians are asking for another £100 a ton is not it a matter of some seriousness?
    Dr. Hill: What has just happened is the completion of the 200,000 tons which was agreed to arrive by April last. As I have said at the moment, we are discussing the question of provisional shipments, pending completion of the negotiations.
    Mr. Dodds: Will the Minister answer the question? Is not the meat now coming in at the old price and may we not eventually have to pay another £100 per ton?
    Dr. Hill: The meat which has been coming in until this moment is meat at the old price, under the agreement which obtained for the year ending April this year. I repeat that the question of provisional shipments is now being discussed.
    Mr. Willey: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he anticipates making a statement on the main negotiations for procurement of meat this year?
    Dr. Hill: No, Sir.
    Mr. G. Jeger: When the Minister says "we are discussing" is he speaking on behalf of the Government or the private traders?
    Dr. Hill: The representatives of Her Majesty's Government are discussing this question.

    Eggs
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Food whether he has now decided to abandon the present egg rationing scheme.
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Food if he can now announce the conclusions he has reached as a result of his review of the system of egg control.
    Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend is examining the whole system of egg control. The subject is complex since eggs are one of the products for which guarantees are provided under the Agriculture Act, 1947, and its consideration will necessarily take some time.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that the position is now so serious that it is most undesirable, in the public interest, that we should dither so long over this matter? If the hens dither over laying eggs as the Minister is dithering now even the black market will not have any eggs.
    Dr. Hill: While I cannot comment on the speed of the hens, my right hon. and gallant Friend will examine and report on this question with all possible speed.
    Mr. Hurd: Has my hon. Friend considered the desirability of consulting suppliers in the egg trade—the producers, packing stations and distributors—
    An Hon. Member: What about consumers?
    Mr. Hurd: If the other work is all right the consumers will get the eggs—so as to bring together their experience in order to see whether the present scheme can be made to work or whether it should be abandoned?
    Dr. Hill: My hon. Friend can take it that there will be all appropriate consultations.
    Mr. Hobson: Has the hon. Gentleman considered consulting his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture about the allocation of feedingstuffs in proportion to the number of eggs returned to the packing stations?
    Dr. Hill: That suggestion, with others, is under consideration.
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Food how many of the 186 persons convicted of large-scale operations in the black market in eggs between 1st October and 31st May last were sentenced to imprisonment; and what was the average fine imposed, respectively, on the group of 39 producers, 84 retailers and 63 caterers involved.
    Dr. Hill: No sentences of imprisonment were imposed. The average fine imposed on the producers, retailers and caterers involved was £24 3s., £5 18s. and £12 respectively.
    Miss Burton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that sentences or fines of that nature are ridiculous in view of the offences involved, and will he please deal with this matter immediately?
    Dr. Hill: The sentences are a matter for the courts to determine, under authority given by this House.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that the way to end this wretched snoopery is to denationalise the egg trade?
    Mr. F. Willey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary now agree that it has been rather unwise to reduce the number of enforcement officers, in view of the difficulties into which he has since run?
    Dr. Hill: One of the criticisms which have been made is that there has been little or no reduction in the number of enforcement officers.

    Sugar
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Food what information he has as to how much surplus sugar is available for purchase in Cuba; at what price it can be purchased; and what steps he has taken to purchase it.
    Dr. Hill: The Cuban surplus is estimated at two million tons. The market price is about 4.20 cents per lb., but my right hon. and gallant Friend cannot buy more Cuban or other dollar sugar than we need to meet current consumption so long as our present balance of payments difficulties persist.
    Mr. Osborne: May I ask the Minister two questions: First, what does 4.20 cents per lb. mean in shillings and pence and, secondly, what will be the total cost of this surplus sugar in English money, if we have the money available to buy it?
    Dr. Hill: To interpret the cost in pounds per ton, it means a figure of £33 12s. Perhaps I might leave the rest of the arithmetic to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Foot: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that his Department will make no agreement with Cuba which will interfere with the bulk purchase arrangements with the West Indies?
    Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend is alive to the need, as expressed in the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, to expand production within the Commonwealth to the highest practical limit.
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the Minister of Food why, in view of the fact that the imports of sugar for the first six months of this year are greater and the exports of sugar less than for the corresponding period last year, he cannot increase the allocation of sugar to manufacturers to avoid the waste of home-grown fruit.
    Dr. Hill: As the hon. Member well knows, he should not draw inferences about our long-term supply position from retained imports over a short period. But manufacturers using fruit have been given extra sugar, and their purchases of fruit should not be restricted for this reason.
    Mr. Wiley: While I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that we must look ahead, may I ask if he does not realise that unless we use some of the sugar to conserve fruit, then, looking ahead, we may have the sugar but we shall not have the fruit? It would be better to have both the fruit and the sugar.
    Dr. Hill: Of course I so realise, and if the hon. Gentleman will study the second half of the answer he will appreciate what is being done.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the extra 1 lb. of sugar has been given for the plum crop and that plums are not one of the main crops of Scotland, where other fruits are grown for which sugar is required just as much as the plum crop in England?
    Dr. Hill: Nevertheless, I am sure that the additional 1 lb. of sugar for the plum crop is widely appreciated.

    Fish Prices (Union Letter)
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Food whether he has considered the letter from the Transport and General Workers'
    1078
    Union, dated 17th July, concerning the price levels of fish; and whether he has been able to accept the suggestions made therein.
    Dr. Hill: The letter contains proposals for the re-organisation and regulation of the white fish industry which should be considered in the first instance by the White Fish Authority. My right hon. and gallant Friend is bringing the views of the Union to the attention of the Authority.
    Miss Burton: Could the hon. Gentleman get on a little more quickly with the suggestion that there should be a minimum price fixed at ports and a maximum price in the shops, the difference between the two prices covering the middlemen's charges?
    Dr. Hill: The hon. Lady will be aware from the Report of the White Fish Authority that the pattern of cost and distribution is one of the subjects now being studied by that body.
    Miss Burton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that trying to persuade this Government to deal with the matter of distribution seems to be beyond the power of any Member of Parliament?
    Dr. Hill: As the Secretary to the Union which wrote this letter is a member of the Advisory Council to the White Fish Authority he will have every opportunity of prodding them into activity.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: As the cost of distribution is one of the greatest factors in relation to the price of fish, will the Parliamentary Secretary press the White Fish Authority to produce their flat rate charge scheme for Parliament?
    Dr. Hill: Yes, Sir.

    Yeast (Packing)
    Mr. Hobsonasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that yeast manufacturers are forcing bakers to take yeast in waxed paper bags instead of jute bags which results in yeast rapidly becoming mouldy and endangering public health; and if he will make regulations to stop this practice.
    Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend is aware that yeast manufacturers now pack baker's yeast in waxed paper instead of jute bags and that a harmless

    1079
    mould found on some packs has given rise to complaints. Although it is not believed that any danger to health is involved, the matter is being investigated.
    Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the supply of yeast in this country is a monopoly in the hands of the Distillers Company, Limited, and that representations have been made by the Master Bakers' Association that a report has been received from a county analyist that, as a result of the heat engendered in the wax paper bags because they cannot expand, the spores produced are dangerous and inimical to health?
    Dr. Hill: It is precisely the scientific problem which is under investigation.

    Scotland (Fresh Fruit Imports)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Food what are his immediate plans, in conjunction with the Minister of Transport, for increasing transport facilities from Canada and the West Indies to Scotland of fresh fruit in refrigeration ships.
    Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend is not aware that existing transport facilities are inadequate for this trade, but if the hon. and learned Member has information to the contrary perhaps he will let me know.
    Mr. Hughes: If the Minister is satisfied that the existing transport facilities are sufficient, will he tell the House how many refrigeration ships are available for this purpose? Is he aware that the need for fresh fruit of this kind is urgent?
    Dr. Hill: No fruit is now being imported from Canada. The main import from the West Indies is bananas, for which there is ample shipping space.
    Mr. Hughes: Why is no fresh fruit being imported from Canada?
    Dr. Hill: The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall the balance of payments problem.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Food what are his immediate plans for increasing the supplies of fresh fruit from Canada and the West Indies to Scotland.
    Dr. Hill: I am not clear what the hon. and learned Member has in mind. Scotland already gets its share of bananas
    1080
    and Scottish traders no doubt ensure that Scotland gets its share of other imported fruits irrespective of the port of arrival.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister allow me to thank him for that careful, diligent and exhaustive answer?

    Food Exporters (Incentives)
    Captain Duncanasked the Minister of Food what incentives he gives to jam manufacturers and canners for exporting their products to dollar countries; and whether he will extend these incentives to other countries, so that more home-grown fruit can be used.
    Dr. Hill: Exporters of food products to dollar countries are entitled to buy allocated ingredients to replace those used and also to buy additional quantities provided as export incentives. But most of these materials, and especially sugar, cost dollars for additional quantities, and so cannot be provided for non-dollar exports.
    Captain Duncan: In view of the present situation in Europe, where we have to use gold, which is equivalent to dollars, why cannot we now encourage the export to Europe of jam and other things which will earn gold?
    Dr. Hill: There are two considerations to which I would draw the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend. First, taking the long view, the assumption is that the dollar will remain the harder currency. Secondly, of all commodities sugar has the best conversion value in terms of exports.

    Horse Slaughtering (Committee)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Food whether the committee appointed to examine the conditions of the slaughter of animals for food will have included in its terms of reference the examination of every type of slaughter for food without exception.
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Food the terms of reference and the names of the members of the committee of inquiry into the protection and safeguarding of horses to be set up by Her Majesty's Government.
    Dr. Hill: It is hoped shortly to announce the composition of this committee and its terms of reference, which

    1081
    will be concerned only with the slaughter of horses but will not be restricted to their slaughter for food.
    Mr. Stokes: Is that really so? Was it not the intention that the examination should concern the slaughter of animals everywhere, for whatever reason, provided it was for food purposes?
    Dr. Hill: No, Sir. In the representations made and the Questions asked, the emphasis was on horse slaughter and associated cruelty. The reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave was related solely to the question of horse slaughter.
    Mr. Stokes: If I put a Question down, will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his right hon. Friend to consider an examination into the slaughter of all animals in this country for food purposes?
    Dr. Hill: If there is a sufficiently wide-spread desire for such an investigation, no doubt my right hon. Friend will consider it.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is very close supervision of the killing of all animals other than horses?
    Mr. Royle: Would the Minister agree that the time has come when there should be some examination of the methods of religious slaughter?
    Dr. Hill: Without notice, I hesitate to answer that question.
    Mr. Assheton: Does my hon. Friend think that the question of the slaughter of pigs ought to be investigated again?
    Dr. Hill: For the moment, and, I think, with the full sympathy of the House, the Prime Minister has initiated this inquiry into a problem which is disturbing many hon. Members—the slaughter of horses.
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Food if he will now take adequate steps to ensure that horse meat is not sold as beef or veal in hotels and restaurants.
    Dr. Hill: The responsibility for ensuring that the Food and Drugs Act is observed rests not with my right hon. and gallant Friend but with those local authorities who administer the Act.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend fully satisfied that horse meat is not being sold as veal or beef in restaurants or hotels? Is he not of the opinion that the possibility of selling horse meat as veal encourages the practice of slaughtering horses in circumstances which have given rise to so much disquiet on both sides of this House?
    Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend has satisfied himself that the food and drugs authorities are alive to the possibility of this abuse and are watching the position.
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Food if he will instruct the committee to be set up on the law relating to the slaughter of horses to consider the advisability of amending the law, so as to require returns to be made to him by local authorities of licences issued for slaughterhouses, in order that a central record might be available.
    Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend will bring this suggestion to the notice of the committee.
    Mr. Johnson: Would my hon. Friend not agree that a central record of slaughterhouses is essential in order to be able to track down those people who are killing horses under the most cruel circumstances, and also to check the sale of horse meat as veal, which nobody else is satisfied is not happening, even if my hon. Friend is?
    Dr. Hill: As the committee has been established to survey this field, I think my hon. Friend would agree that it is approprate to bring this suggestion to their notice.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Parliamentary Secretary also bring to the notice of the committee a suggestion I have made on one or two occasions, namely, that the price of horse meat retailed for public consumption should be brought under control?
    Dr. Hill: Yes, Sir.

    Fruit and Vegetables (Distribution)
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the Minister of Food whether he has considered the proposals recently made to him by the retailers' associations to improve the distribution of fruit and veg etables; and what action he is taking.
    Dr. Hill: The proposals are still under consideration.
    Mr. Willey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary try to persuade the Minister to let us know what he thinks about this?
    Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend is considering these views, which come from retailers, and other views which come from other sections of the community, and consideration, in the light of all the difficulties, will proceed as quickly as possible.
    Miss Burton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that is exactly the same answer as I got some weeks ago? Does he anticipate that we can have a reply on this matter fairly soon?
    Dr. Hill: I thought the hon. Lady was about to say that it was the same kind of answer that she got a year ago.
    Mr. Willey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the last Government announced their proposals about fruit and vegetable marketing?
    Dr. Hill: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's writings on the subject, in which he has emphasised the grave difficulties, including that of capital investment.

    Milk (Pasteurisation)
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Food what proportion of milk produced is pasteurised; how much of this is mixed with non-pasteurised milk before sale; and what improvements he anticipates in the proportion of pasteurised milk in the future.
    Dr. Hill: A total of 82 per cent. of all milk sold in the liquid market in England and Wales and 73 per cent. in Scotland is already pasteurised or sterilised, and these percentages will gradually be improved. None of this milk is mixed with other milks before sale.

    International Wheat Agreement
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Food if he is satisfied with the operation of the International Wheat Agreement, especially in view of the reduction in the acreage under wheat in the chief exporting countries.
    Dr. Hill: The present Agreement has certainly been of benefit to this country.
    1084
    The fall since 1949 in the wheat acreage of the principal exporting countries cannot be ascribed simply to the Agreement. Other factors, such as the high prices of wool and course grains, have obviously had an influence on the wheat acreage.
    Mr. Russell: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that the acreage in the exporting countries should fall? When a new agreement is being negotiated will he bear in mind the need to take steps to conserve it?
    Dr. Hill: Yes, Sir. This argument is used with vigour by the exporting countries, but it is clear that there are other complicating factors which lead to the conclusion that price and acreage are not directly related.

    Pig Grading, Rugby
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the dissatisfaction of Rugby and district pig keepers with the market at Birmingham; and whether he will consider the possibility of having a grading market at Rugby.
    Dr. Hill: There is already at Rugby a livestock collecting centre at which pigs are accepted for purchase by my Department, but both at Rugby and elsewhere pigs are graded only after slaughter at the bacon factory or slaughterhouse to which they are consigned by the Ministry. If the hon. Member knows of any particular complaint I shall be glad to inquire into it.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that pig keepers everywhere, not only in Rugby, like to see their pigs officially weighed on the spot, and since this is done for sheep and cattle, why cannot it also be done for pigs?
    Dr. Hill: In order fairly to assess the weight and quality of the pig it is necessary that the examination should be undertaken after slaughter, bearing in mind that the consumption of even a modest quantity of fluid before attending at the collecting centre can have a substantial effect on the weight.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware that not only pigs are affected by taking in liquor, but other animals used for food as well?

    Plum Crop (Utilisation)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Food the outcome of his recent discussions with the National Farmers' Union upon special emergency measures to deal with the plum and damson crops anticipated to be the largest in living memory, with special reference to utilising the surplus from Worcestershire.
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Food what special steps he is taking to ensure that none of the heavy plum crop is wasted.
    Dr. Hill: As hon. Members already know, an additional domestic sugar bonus of 1 lb. per head is being given in August so that housewives can take advantage of this year's plum crop for jam making. The sugar and tinplate available to jam manufacturers and canners this year are enough to ensure that their purchases are not restricted.
    My right hon. and gallant Friend has decided to remove price control over prunes in order to encourage experiments with the drying of plums, and it is hoped that this will provide a new and useful outlet. Other steps include publicity on methods of pruning and a request to the Services Departments to take full advantage of this year's phenomenal crop.
    Mr. Nabarro: While thanking my hon. Friend for the strenuous efforts he is making to deal with the very satisfactory Worcester plum crop, may I ask if he will give the House some information about the extent of the additional allocation of sugar to the manufacturers, particularly to the canners?
    Dr. Hill: The sugar for plum canning is being increased by 20 per cent. to an amount which the canners have stated to be enough for the plums that they can dispose of this year.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that the sugar allocation to the housewives barely touches the fringe of the problem, and will he give an assurance that, in view of the fact that the housewives cannot take up all the plum crop, the Armed Forces will not be bogged down in plum jam?
    Dr. Hill: I can sympathise with the views that many soldiers will have about plum jam. At the same time, I would issue a general appeal for the use in all
    1086
    possible forms and by all persons of this year's phenomenal plum crop.
    Mr. Renton: While not wishing to devalue the quality of the plums in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware that the finest Victoria plums in the world, most suitable for canning, are grown in East Huntingdonshire and West Cambridgeshire? Will a fair proportion of those plums be canned in accordance with the arrangements which are now being made?
    Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the extra 1 lb. of sugar which is given to us for jam making because of the plum crop still leaves the housewife 3 lb. short of what she had last year? She is short of cheese, short of eggs, short of sugar—short of everything but Government incompetence. Is it not time that the Government got out?
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Food whether he has now received the report from the Ditton Laboratory of the Food Investigation Section of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research at East Mailing, Kent, upon the drying of plums for sale as prunes; whether he will publish the report; and what the prospects are of establishing an indigenous prunes industry based on Worcestershire plums.
    Dr. Hill: The Stationery Office hope to publish a report by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on the drying of English fruit on 2nd August. An article summarising the main points of the chapter on plums has already appeared in the technical Press. It would be premature at this stage to express an opinion on longer term prospects.
    Mr. Nabarro: Does my hon. Friend realise that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has now succeeded in producing a British prune, which, although not as black, as sweet, or as wrinkled as the Californian prune, is, nevertheless, one which possesses all the qualities inherent in a prune? Will he take steps before next year to sponsor the creation of a prune manufacturing industry in this country based primarily on Worcestershire plums?
    Mr. Lindgren: Give him a raspberry.
    Dr. Hill: Steps to encourage pruning this year have already been taken, and I note my hon. Friend's public tribute to the power of the prune.
    Mr. Snow: In this forthcoming publication will special attention be paid to the domestic producer of this particular form of fruit, because there are many surplus crops of small volume which may be used for the domestic production of prunes?
    Dr. Hill: I am glad that the hon. Member has put that supplementary, for in this report and in the summarised version of it the necessary details will be given to enable the housewives to engage in the pruning of plums at home.

    Food Prices
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Food the weekly increase per person of food items since October, 1951; and if he can classify which increases are due to Budget changes, increased grocers' margins and decontrol.
    Dr. Hill: The Retail Index of Food Prices is the accepted method of measuring price changes. Between October, 1951, and January, 1952, food prices increased by 4.8 per cent. The new basis of the index was adopted in January, 1952, and between then and mid-June food prices have risen by 8.7 per cent. It is not possible to apportion the incidence of individual factors in price increases, but those mentioned by the hon. Lady are by no means exhaustive.
    Mrs. Mann: That is an amazing reply. Does it mean that the hon. Gentleman, when he frees 27 items of groceries from control, has no further knowledge of how prices are rising in the shops—that he can merely free 30 or 40 items and let the prices go through the roof? Are we to understand there is no control whatever over any of these items?
    Dr. Hill: The hon. Lady is to understand that the index figure I have just given is the expression, and the only expression, of the general effect of price increases.
    Mr. Marlowe: Do not these figures show a considerable improvement on those of last year, when the rate of rise was very much the same but there were no compensating benefits given by the Budget?
    Mr. J. Hallasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the lower-paid worker is being exposed to the full force of rising prices without being substantially affected by price reductions in other commodity groups; and if he will endeavour to seek some easement of food prices.
    Dr. Hill: I cannot add to what my right hon. and gallant Friend said on this subject in the course of the debate on 30th June. As the hon. Member knows, substantial compensatory additions are being made to social benefits to help those most directly affected by increases in the prices of subsidised foods.
    Mr. Hall: Does the Minister not think it would be better if he imposed very drastic forms of control over food prices rather than have the trade unions put under the necessity of having to put forward applications for increases of wages?
    Dr. Hill: I have nothing to add to the statement that my right hon. and gallant Friend made.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman, in his original reply, made reference, as he often does, to the compensating factors of money benefits, but does he not realise that seven-eighths of those come from the contributions of the workers themselves?
    Dr. Hill: I realise that that statement is not accurate.

    Food Hygiene
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Food what progress is being made in introducing more hygienic handling of food in shops and restaurants.
    Dr. Hill: As hygienic handling of food is essentially a matter of personal care and cleanliness it is upon a wider recognition by the public of the dangers involved that progress mainly depends. Local authorities and other bodies, including the Central Council for Health Education, are doing their best to bring home to the public the danger to themselves and to the community of careless food handling, but a good deal remains to be done if these unnecessary outbreaks of food poisoning are to be prevented.

    New Slaughterhouses
    Mr. Speirasked the Minister of Food how many new slaughterhouses his Department anticipate bringing into operation during the next 12 months; and what will be their location.
    Dr. Hill: Four: Canterbury, Fareham, Grimsby and Swindon.
    Mr. Speir: Does my hon. Friend realise that all these new slaughterhouses are to be in the southern counties of England: and in view of the high production of beef and mutton in the northern counties could he provide better facilities in the North; and, in particular, would he perhaps consider the possibility of extending the existing slaughterhouse at Hexham, or building a new one there?
    Dr. Hill: Among the slaughterhouses under consideration there are two in the North—although not as far north as my hon. Friend would wish—one at Sunderland and one in the Wigan, Bolton and Leigh area. If my hon. Friend will give me details I will have the position in relation to Hexham examined.
    Mr. Willey: Has any progress been made with regard to the site at Sunderland?
    Dr. Hill: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question on that.

    Enforcement Officers
    Mr. Speirasked the Minister of Food the number of enforcement stall and inspectorate employed by his Department in the northern region of England at the present time; and the number so employed in 1947 and 1950.
    Dr. Hill: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Speir: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that these enforcement officers are fully employed; and will he perhaps consult the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to see whether some "pruning" could not be encouraged in this direction, too?
    Dr. Hill: The establishment of enforcement officers is continually scrutinized, and I will consult my hon. Friend on anything.
    Following is the information:

    —

    Inspectorate

    Executive and clerical staff

    1st July, 1952…

    38

    5

    1st July, 1947…

    23 (there were a number of vacancies which were then unfilled)

    Not available

    1st July, 1950…

    40

    8

  HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING (SUGAR)
  Mr. Doddsasked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, why, in recent days, there has been a much reduced issue of sugar with beverages in the cafeteria; and for how long this reduction will last.
  Mr. Steward: In common with other catering establishments, we are restricted to the scale of rationed goods permitted by the Ministry of Food. Of late a number of Members when taking hot beverages, have helped themselves to sugar too liberally and have, thereby, caused a temporary shortage. It is hoped to be able to revert to the normal issue when the House resumes after the Recess.
  Mr. Dodds: Is not that a depressing story? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the cafeteria members of the public have been unable to get sugar on several nights, and that with a pot of tea from which they can get two cups they get only one piece of sugar? Is not this a damning indictment against this Government of businessmen?
  Mr. Steward: I will examine the points made by the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that we are short of sugar for the reasons I have stated, and that we have to cut down all round. We are taking steps to prevent a recurrence of this in future.
  Mr. Poole: Does that reply not prove conclusively that under this Government fair shares for all have disappeared?
  Mr. Steward: My reply should denote that some hon. Members have taken advantage of the facilities given to them to help themselves, and that because they have abused that privilege we are short of sugar.

  TRANSPORT

    Second-hand Cars (Safety)
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the widespread anxiety concerning the un-roadworthiness of many second-hand cars offered for sale at the present time; and, in view of the necessity for taking any measures calculated to reduce the toll of road accidents, whether he will introduce legislation making it compulsory for all cars to be sold with certificates of roadworthiness.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): No, Sir. There is no evidence that accidents attributable to vehicle defects are increasing and it would be difficult and expensive to set up a system which would secure that a vehicle did not change hands without a reliable certificate of this kind. In any case, the certificate would be of only temporary value. It is an offence to use on the roads any motor vehicle which is in such a condition that it is likely to cause danger.
    Miss Burton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that garage mechanics, not only in the motoring City of Coventry but elsewhere, are very disturbed at the condition of these second-hand lower priced cars now being offered for sale? Is he further aware that they say they are a menace to road safety, that both the motoring associations, the R.A.C. and the A.A., have excellent facilities for testing cars, and will he look at evidence which is sent to him on the matter?
    Mr. Braithwaite: Yes, Sir. The hon. Lady will recall that this matter was exhaustively examined by the Alness Committee, and that their recommendations are contrary to her suggestion.

    Road Services Depots (Ministerial Visits)
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Transport how many visits the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power has paid to the headquarters of the Road Haulage Executive or to its outlying depots, in the course of the investigations made by him prior to the introduction of the Transport Bill.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): None, Sir. My noble friend never had any doubt that within the framework imposed upon them by the misguided policy of the Transport Act the Road Haulage Executive, and the Commission as a whole, were working with the greatest zeal and energy.
    Mr. Callaghan: Does that mean, then, that neither Lord Leathers, nor the Minister, nor his immediate predecessor has paid any visit to the Road Haulage Executive or any of their depots at any time; and if so, why not?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman must assume no such thing.
    Mr. Callaghan: But is it true?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have here dealt with a Question directed towards my noble Friend and to him alone. As for myself, as soon as I am released from Parliamentary obligations I intend to travel round a good deal.
    Mr. D. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the view in the answer he gave to the Question is not shared by any of the experts in the industry, except by himself and his friends who have only seen this thing through the windows of their own motor cars?
    Mr. Callaghan: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that his allegations that the Road Haulage Executive are not able to provide an efficient service are repudiated emphatically by the staff of the Road Haulage Executive; and when he goes to see them will he take very good care that he talks to the staff and finds out what the facts of the situation are?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am quite prepared to rely on my own talks with the people concerned and not on the hon. Gentleman's impression of what he thinks they are likely to be.
    Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend also talk to some of the customers of this inefficient service?

  SHIPPING

    R.M.S. "Queen Mary"
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Transport on what date Her Majesty's Government undertook the insurance of the R.M.S. "Queen Mary"; at what stage in the construction of the ship; and when this responsibility was discharged.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Her Majesty's Government participated in the insurance of the R.M.S. "Queen Mary" from 31st January, 1931, when she was in the early stages of construction, until 31st December, 1949. There still remain a few very minor claims to be settled.
    Mr. Smith: Am I correct in understanding from that reply that the Cunard Company paid the whole cost of the building of the "Queen Mary"; and can the Minister state the amount of subsidy that was paid for the building of the latest United States ship, and who will be the legal owners of it?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that either of those two generalisations arises out of this Question.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Transport the number of persons carried by the R.M.S. "Queen Mary" during the war when that ship was on duty as a troopship; the average time taken in crossing the Atlantic; and the shortest time taken on a single voyage during that period.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: R.M.S. "Queen Mary" carried 810,730 persons during her service as a troopship. I regret that information on the other two points is not available, but, in any case, as the hon. Member will appreciate, there were great variations in the route followed.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Minister admit that this ship has the best record in shipping in the world, that its service in peace is at least as good as, if not better than, any other in the world; and is it not a fact that the "Queen Mary" carried a whole division fully equipped on one voyage during the war?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I feel quite sure that that is generally true.

    North Atlantic Ships (Modernisation)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Transport if he will invite to an early meeting representatives of shipping and shipbuilding companies for the purpose of considering the need for modernisation and modifications of pre-war built North Atlantic passenger ships.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The British shipping lines can be relied on to do what-
    1094
    ever is necessary to maintain their first-rate service on the North Atlantic for which they are rightly famed.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Minister agree that, in view of the size of ships now and the present cost of building, the Government should now intervene in order that we can hold our own on the seas of the world?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that we are most certainly holding our own today.
    Mr. Shinwell: While everybody recognises how important it is to modernise passenger vessels, will the Minister of Transport give some consideration to the need—which will become urgent in the course of the next three or four years—to build the right kind of tramps?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. W. G. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prestige of this country has always been bound up with the quality and speed of our ships; and in view of that fact will the Government give this matter their very early and earnest consideration?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: While recognising the great achievement of the "United States," we must also recognise that our reputation on the Atlantic has in no way suffered by the events of the last few weeks.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Minister not realise that it is not only the Atlantic; that British ship builders have proved themselves to be among the best in the world, and in view of the present difficulties should the Government not give them more encouragement than they are doing?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I feel quite certain that British lines know that I and the Government are always ready to meet them on any occasion when they feel they need any help.
    Mr. Beswick: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that last year twice as many people crossed the Atlantic by air as crossed by first-class steamer; and will he therefore get a move on with the aircraft which I indicated last week?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No doubt we shall be discussing that in the debate this afternoon.

EGYPT (SITUATION)
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): With permission, Sir, I should like to make a short statement on recent events in Egypt.
Hon. Members will have heard the news of the abdication of King Farouk on Saturday evening. His infant son has been proclaimed King in his place and it has been decided to set up a Council of Regency. At present the Royal powers are vested in the Egyptian Government under Aly Maher Pasha who was appointed Prime Minister before the abdication.
I am sure that the House will not expect me to comment upon the internal affairs of Egypt; still less to speculate upon the course of future developments. But I should like to take this opportunity to stress our interest and, I am sure, the interest of all free nations, that a stable and orderly administration should emerge from the present crisis.
My latest information from Egypt indicates that there have been no disturbances and no threat to foreign lives or interests. Nevertheless, in view of the unsettled conditions which inevitably result from events such as have recently taken place in Egypt, we have thought it right to authorise certain movements of British Forces as a precautionary measure.
Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Alexandria has, on my instructions, made it clear to the Egyptian Prime Minister that Her Majesty's Government have no wish to intervene in the internal affairs of Egypt: these military movements being solely related to possible danger to British lives.
In the existing circumstances, I have also thought it right that Her Majesty's Ambassador should return to his post. Sir Ralph Stevenson is now on his way to Cairo.
Mr. Attlee: In rising to ask a supplementary question, may I say how glad we are to see the right hon. Gentleman back, and express the hope that he is fully restored to health?
May I ask him what is the position with regard to the new King of Egypt? Is it correct that he has been proclaimed as King of Egypt and of the Sudan, and,
1096
in that case, what action will be taken by Her Majesty in reference to that assumption?
Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. But first may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generous words. As regards the proclamation, I understand that it has been made in the terms which the right hon. Gentleman has referred to. Of course, that has been the consistent claim of Egypt, as we all know, for some considerable time. Equally, of course, it can in no way change the attitude of Her Majesty's Government or the policy they have pursued and will continue to pursue in respect of the Sudan.
Mr. Driberg: Arising out of that point, will it be necessary for new credentials to be presented, and, if so, will they be presented by the British Ambassador in a form which will not cause concern in Khartoum?
Mr. Eden: That is certainly a point which has already occurred to us. I do not think I should do very much good by commenting on it at the present time, except to repeat that our position in respect of the Sudan has not changed and will not change.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if King Farouk is still an honorary general of the British Army, and what is his constitutional position? Now that he has more leisure on his hands, is he to be invited here to help with the Home Guard?
Mr. Eden: I shall be very glad to look into the constitutional position. I am not quite so familiar with it as perhaps I ought to be, since King Farouk was, of course, made a general of the British Army by the late Socialist Government.
Mr. Snow: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about mobilising and moving certain British Forces for the protection of British lives, does he mean British residents within Egypt or merely within the Canal Zone?
Mr. Eden: We have made certain precautionary movements in respect of Egypt. These precautionary movements affect the Canal Zone, and there are also certain naval movements of which the hon. Gentleman will be aware. They are, I repeat, purely precautionary. At

1097
the week-end we considered the matter very carefully, and we thought that it was quite essential to take these steps in case—we hope not—certain eventualities should occur.

KOREA (MILITARY SITUATION)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the military situation in Korea.
There has been no significant change in the military situation or the strength of the opposing land forces in Korea since the visit of my noble Friend and the Minister of State, and there is not much to add to the statements made on their return.
There are still no signs that the enemy is making any preparations for an offensive, but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House in his statement on 28th May, they remain capable of launching a major offensive from their strongly-prepared defensive line without much advance warning. Meanwhile the Communists are continuing to improve their deeply entrenched position across the peninsula and, of course, our own troops are constantly increasing the strength of their positions.
During the last month the United Nations forces have made a number of raids and probing attacks. Some of these raids on enemy positions have resulted in sharp fighting and casualties on both sides. The Communists have also initiated a number of attacks against our outpost positions. They made use of their increased armament of guns to fire over 40,000 artillery rounds and almost 60,000 mortar bombs against the United Nations forces during the first half of July.
Over the past few weeks the Commonwealth Division have sent out a number of raiding parties of platoon or company strength, but they have not been engaged in any heavier action.
Today is the anniversary of the formation of the Commonwealth Division. I was very proud to read General Van Fleet's commendation of their "high courage, unwavering determination and
1098
all encompassing combat excellence." I think the House would wish to join with me in paying tribute to the fine record of the Division. We are very proud of them and we are confident that, whatever may happen in Korea, they will acquit themselves most worthily.
The United Nations Commander has continued to make full use of his superiority in air and sea power to limit the capacity of the Communists to undertake an offensive with the forces they have built up during the past 12 months.
The House is already aware of the details of the co-ordinated attack of 23rd June on the power plants serving the airfields, military installations and armaments industry of North Korea. This was followed by a number of subsidiary attacks on these and other power installations. Examination of the photographs taken after the raids suggest that about nine-tenths of the North Korean generating capacity has been put out of action.
On 11th and 12th July a sustained air attack was made against military targets in the Pyongyang area. Pyongyang is a large enemy garrison city, communications centre and arsenal. The targets, which were carefully identified beforehand by air photography, included antiaircraft installations, tank and vehicle repair shops and parks, supply installations and factories engaged in war production. Leaflets were dropped in advance warning the civil population that military targets would be attacked and urging them to move away.
In addition to these heavy raids, the interdiction programme has continued unabated and supply areas and depots in other parts of North Korea have been frequently attacked. The Commonwealth air units in Korea have, of course, played their parts in these operations.
During the last month naval aircraft have participated in the air attacks on military targets in North Korea. By sea naval units have continued to bombard enemy dock areas, rail communications and factory areas. The Royal Navy, in conjunction with other Commonwealth Navies, has continued to play its full part in these operations. In particular our aircraft carrier, H.M.S. "Ocean," has maintained a consistently high standard of naval air operations, flying an average of 80 sorties daily.

1099
I should like to enlarge on the casualty figures which the Prime Minister gave on 28th May. Since the armistice talks began a year ago, the United Nations forces have suffered over 80,000 casualties (including about 48,000 South Koreans) and 16,000 of these have been killed. The Commonwealth casualties during this period total about 2,500, including over 400 killed. During the first three weeks of this month when no major operations were in progress, the United Nations casualties amounted to nearly 4,000. We need to bear in mind in all our discussions on Korea that these casualties on our side are continuing day by day.
The armistice talks are still centering around the question of repatriation of prisoners of war, and the United Nations negotiators are standing firm on the principle that prisoners should not be forcibly repatriated. Every effort is being made to find a solution acceptable to both sides.
On 1st July my right hon. Friend the Minister of State informed the House that the United Nations' Commander, General Clark, had made a request, which was subsequently agreed to by the United States Government, that an officer from the Commonwealth should be appointed as a Deputy Chief of Staff at General Clark's headquarters with duties in connection with operations in Korea.
The request was for an officer drawn from one of the Commonwealth countries providing combatant forces in Korea and it has been agreed with the Governments of those countries that the post should be filled by a senior United Kingdom officer. The officer selected after consultation with the Commonwealth Governments is Major-General S. N. Shoosmith. It should be made clear that General Shoosmith will be appointed by the United Nations Command and will be in all respects an ordinary member of General Clark's staff with responsibility solely to him. By making this officer available Her Majesty's Government accept no more responsibility for the conduct of operations than they bear at present as a member of the United Nations who have entrusted to the United States Government the conduct on their behalf of the Korean operations.
1100
There will continue to be only one channel for consultation about Korea and that is between our representatives in Washington and the United States Government and military authorities there.
It is, of course, necessary for us to be kept informed of the progress of operations and of the many technical military matters which arise in the course of the daily work of Her Majesty's Forces in Korea. All this liaison work will continue to be carried out by the Chiefs of Staff's representative accredited to General Clark's headquarters. All other Governments whose forces are engaged in Korea have liaison sections at headquarters in Tokyo and these arrangements will not be disturbed in any way by the new appointment which is being made to General Clark's staff.
Mr. Shinwell: The Parliamentary Secretary gave the casualty figures for the Commonwealth Division but omitted to give the casualty figures for the British Forces. Perhaps he will be good enough to do so. May I also ask whether the appointment of Major-General Shoosmith makes any difference in the position? According to the hon. Gentleman's statement, Major-General Shoosmith is seconded to General Clark's staff and will thus be under General Clark's orders, and, therefore, there will be no change in the consultative methods. I understood from what the Parliamentary Secretary said that the channel for consultation will continue as at present, namely, through our military representatives at Washington with the United States Government. May we have an assurance that the mistake which occurred recently will not be repeated and that consultations will be more effective?
Mr. Birch: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this matter was very fully discussed during the recent debate. It is certainly hoped that consultation will be effective in the future. It was also made clear that the new Deputy Chief of Staff is definitely one of General Clark's staff, and, therefore, cannot rightly communicate directly with this country.
Mr. Shinwell: That is precisely the point. The issue which emerged from the recent debate was the need for effective consultation. Apparently the channels for consultation will continue as they were before, and the appointment of

1101
Major-General Shoosmith will make no difference whatever. What assurances have we that consultation, which we regard as essential in all the circumstances, will be more effective than was disclosed by the recent incident?
Mr. Birch: I think Major-General Shoosmith's appointment will be of value, particularly to General Clark in getting to know British reactions to anything he may wish to do. I think it has been generally admitted that in the case of the recent Yalu bombings there was a breakdown in the consultations, but it has not been normal—it certainly was not normal when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of Defence—for the consultations to break down, and we see no reason why they should do so in future. We think the present arrangements will be successful, and we hope and pray they will be.
Mr. Wyatt: As General Clark has the right of direct access to his own Government, which he uses, why will not Major-General Shoosmith have the same right of direct access to his own Government? What is the purpose of making the change if the only result of it is that we are in exactly the same position as before? The Prime Minister said that he would make a statement on this matter. Why has he not made the statement instead of getting the Parliamentary Secretary to do it?
Mr. Birch: As General Clark is the Supreme Commander, clearly he must have the right of access to his own Government. Major-General Shoosmith will be a staff officer at General Clark's headquarters, and therefore he is in a quite different position. With regard to the Prime Minister not having made the statement, the hon. Gentleman will have to endure my doing so.
Mr. A. Henderson: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether there is any truth in the statement that has been made that a number of prisoner-of-war camps containing United Nations prisoners of war have been moved to sites near military targets?
Mr. Birch: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the prisoner-of-war camps have not been marked according to the Geneva Convention. I do not think that there is any truth in the suggestion that they have been moved near targets. I have not heard that.
Mr. Chetwynd: As the appointment of Major-General Shoosmith is purely a military matter, what is being done to improve and strengthen the political relationships between the countries concerned? What is being done to improve relations with the Press over this matter?
Mr. Birch: The question of consultation was fully discussed during the last debate. We have the closest consultation through our Ambassador and the British Military Mission in Washington, and there is no reason why that should not work perfectly well. As far as the Press is concerned, I do not think there is anything that I can say.
Mr. Ellis Smith: This means that the United States is going to determine policy.
Mr. Patrick Maitland: Would not the appointment of a British liaison officer with the right of reporting back to this Government entail the appointment of similar liaison officers for all the other members of the United Nations with forces fighting in Korea, which would result in a most cumbersome arrangement at General Mark Clark's headquarters?
Mr. Birch: I said in my statement that all the Governments having troops in Korea have liaison sections in Tokyo through which information is passed, but other Governments have not this appointment of a staff officer.
Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman did not reply to the first supplementary question about British casualties. May I also ask him whether he realises that the statement about these arrangements made an behalf of Her Majesty's Government must be regarded as most unsatisfactory?
Mr. Birch: I am sorry that I did not answer the right hon. Gentleman's first supplementary question. The United Kingdom casualties since the armistice talks began have been about 1,300.
Mr. Beswick: The Parliamentary Secretary said that General Clark would be able to obtain British reactions through General Shoosmith. Can he tell us how General Shoosmith is to be kept informed of what British opinion is?
Mr. Birch: My noble Friend in another place, when discussing this subject, pointed out that during the war in Italy

1103
he had a Deputy Chief of Staff who was an American and from whom he often got the most valuable information and reactions.
Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the enemy will have the greatest difficulty in rehabilitating the power houses on the Yalu River, and in considering that factor will he remember that large quantities of electrical generating equipment have in the last few years been sent from this country to countries east of the Iron Curtain? Will he undertake, with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to scrutinise very carefully all equipment of that kind leaving this country, in order to make quite sure that nothing which is suitable for hydro-electric plant is sent there?
Mr. Birch: I will certainly convey that to my right hon. Friend, but I think questions on that matter should be addressed to him.
Mr. J. Paton: Is it not the case that everything that the hon. Gentleman has said today in his statement makes clear to the House that every possible link between Major-General Shoosmith and Her Majesty's Government has been severed, and is it not the case that he has repeatedly told us that General Shoosmith does not owe allegiance to Her Majesty's Government in his new appointment but to the United Nations and to the general body of countries in the British Commonwealth? How, then, does the appointment of Major-General Shoosmith in any way whatsoever meet the general demand on all sides of this House, expressed in the recent debate, that there should be more direct and more responsible contact between our Government and the American Command in Korea on political decisions?
Mr. Birch: I said in my statement that political contact between the Governments is maintained at Washington through our Ambassador. That must continue to be the case. This, after all, is a United Nations Command, and officers who are appointed must be loyal to the United Nations Command.
Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the deep disquiet felt in this country about the
1104
present position of Korea does not arise only out of the occasional failures in consultation, but is concerned with what appears to be a total lack of influence or control by this country in a situation which is pregnant with fatal and tragic consequences for the whole world, and that if the changes which have now been made do not, as it appears they will not, enable this country to exert a greater influence both upon negotiations and upon the conduct of affairs, that disquiet will so blow up in this country that it will soon amount to a popular demand for the withdrawal of all our troops from that country?
Mr. Birch: If we enter a campaign with allies, we must be loyal to them.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We must get on. There is no Question before the House.

LEAD (PRIVATE TRADING)
The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): With the leave of the House, I should like to make a statement about lead.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that the Government have decided that private trading in lead can be restored as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made by the Ministry of Materials and the trade. Discussions with the trade will take place at once, and it is hoped that it will be possible to give effect to the decision on 1st October. A further announcement about the date will be made as soon as possible. From the date of reversion the private import of virgin lead will be permitted and the London Metal Exchange will re-open for transactions in lead. The Ministry of Materials will cease to trade in lead except to the extent necessary to wind up its trading operations.
In reaching this decision, the Government have taken account of the improvement in lead supplies, the importance for the export trade of enabling United Kingdom consumers to buy at fully competitive prices, and the advantages to the balance of payments and the position of sterling from the earnings which will arise directly and indirectly from reopening an international lead market in London.

1105
I should like to take the opportunity of acknowledging the understanding co-operation which we have had from the lead producers, particularly those in Australia and Canada, throughout the whole period of public trading during and since the war.
Mr. G. R. Strauss: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not appreciate—as I am sure he does—that about half of our lead supplies come from outside the sterling area; that about 26,000 tons come from Canada, and that the reason for continuing Government purchase was in order to protect our balance of payments situation and prevent private traders, if free, from buying excessive quantities of lead with dollars and not sufficient from the sterling area. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what steps the Government propose to take to prevent excessive quantities from being bought in dollar and other than sterling currencies, which would possibly do serious damage to our balance of payments situation?
Mr. Mackeson: Yes, Sir, Her Majesty's Government have considered that point, and, as the right hon. Gentleman will be well aware, the arrangements for tin have proved satisfactory. We shall adopt a similar policy to ensure that we do not lose exchange in this transaction. The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, appreciate that the situation with which he was confronted was different from that prevailing now owing to the fact that we have to use gold to balance our payments with E.P.U.
Mr. Strauss: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a further question. Tin is no analogy at all, because we do not buy any tin with dollar currency. It is a sterling commodity which is sold for dollars, but the problem about lead is that a large part of it is bought with dollars and currencies other than sterling. The reason no private enterprise trading was previously allowed was not because there was a shortage but because of the serious threat to our dollar position. The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question as to what steps, if any, it is proposed to take to prevent this free trade in lead from doing serious damage to our dollar situation, because unless some specific steps are taken there is the prospect of great damage to our position arising from this freeing of purchase?
Mr. Mackeson: I quite appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, and steps will be taken through the Bank of England and the Exchange Control to ensure that we do not lose sterling by this transaction.
Mr. Strauss: I am sorry to press the hon. Gentleman, but surely the discussions should have taken place already? The matter was investigated carefully when I was Minister and no one, neither the Metal Exchange, the lead merchants nor the Bank of England, was able to suggest a method of freeing the lead trade in such a way as to safeguard our dollar situation, and it is for that reason that I took no action. Surely, if the Government announce a change of policy now, they should be able to announce at the same time what steps they have in mind to meet the serious danger which is entailed in this proposition?
Mr. Mackeson: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that all this has been taken into consideration, and Her Majesty's Government have decided, in accordance with their election pledges, to free the London Metal Exchange as we said we would do as and when we saw fit.
Mr. Arbuthnot: Could my hon. Friend say what saving of staff is likely to result from this decision?
Mr. Mackeson: There will be a small saving of staff, but not very much.
Mr. Bevan: As lead is likely to be in short supply for a long time and as lead is one of the raw materials subject to international allocation at the moment, where is the relevance of this change? Will the actual physical supply of lead be increased and the allocation system altered merely by allowing people to make a profit out of the transfer of lead from one hand to another?
Mr. Mackeson: The right hon. Gentleman does not realise that we have very considerable reserves of lead and the supply position is no longer a matter of great seriousness.
Mr. Bevan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that statement is entirely inaccurate, and, in point of fact, there exists a continuing shortage of lead all over the world, which was only concealed by the fact that recently there was big stockpiling? Therefore, what is the relevance of the statement now made by the

1107
hon. Gentleman to the future procurement and need of lead?
Mr. Mackeson: I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. We have given our pledge, we have taken our action, we shall face the consequences.
Sir I. Fraser: May I ask my hon. Friend whether it is not a fact that the present step to free lead is exactly analogous to, and follows logically upon, the freeing of tin, which was much welcomed when it took place a few years ago? Is it not also true, contrary to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss)—who ought to know better because he knows this trade—that substantial quantities of tin are bought in Bolivia and tin residues in the United States which cost dollars, and that the previous Government naturally took steps to see that the dollars were rationed? That is exactly what has occurred with lead, so that the danger he apprehends is only mythical.
Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that tin is predominantly a sterling metal, whereas a considerabe proportion of lead is a dollar commodity coming from Canada? Further, is the Minister aware that his statement, without any further elucidation about safeguarding our dollar position, is a very alarming one indeed? It appears to us, unless there is further explanation, that the
1108
Government are sacrificing the interests of this country, and particularly the balance of payments, in order to carry out a theoretical freeing of the Metal Exchange of which there was no particular pledge in the election address. It seems to us that the Government are taking a political action with serious economic consequences to this country.
Mr. Mackeson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would take note of the fact that Australia alone produces 220,000 tons of lead, that Germany produces 171,000 tons, and that most of the dollar lead is consumed in the dollar areas.
Mr. Strauss: I am sorry, but that does not alter the fact that one-third of the lead normally imported into this country comes from areas outside the sterling area—26,000 tons from Canada.
Mr. Mackeson: The right hon. Gentleman is misinformed on that subject. The last figure I had was 13,000 tons. If his figure is correct, I shall be delighted to hear it.
Mr. Speaker: We cannot continue the discussion now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered:
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'Clock.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [26TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  REPORT [24 th July]

  CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPART- MENTS ESTIMATES AND SUP- PLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1952- –53; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1952–53; NAVY, ARMY AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1952–53.
  Resolution reported:
  That a sum, not exceeding £10,391,933, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Transport in Scotland for the year ending on 31st March, 1953, namely:

  Civil Estimates, 1952–53

  £

  Class I, Vote 26, Scottish Home Department

  1,062,933

  Class VI, Vote 14, Ministry of Transport

  1,493,000

  Class VI, Vote 17, Ministry of Civil Aviation

  7,836,000

  Total

  £10,391,933

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

  TRANSPORT, SCOTLAND
  4.6 p.m.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: It is rather a pity that we must discuss Scottish transport under the shadow of a Government threat to interfere with the developments which are taking place. It would be much better had we been able to discuss this from the point of view of economic progress, finding out what faults exist in the present system and trying to put them right. However, we must do our best to put aside from our thoughts at the moment the rather threatening future and try to see whether we can tackle the problem of Scottish transport from the point of view of practical efficiency and not from the point of view of a theoretical battle across the Floor of the House.
  It might be of service if I recapitulated some of the facts which lie behind Scottish transport, because I am quite sure
  1110
  that some of my colleagues in other parts of the country do not appreciate the tremendous problems we have in Scotland which are not common to the rest of the United Kingdom. They are problems of geography, they are economic problems and, greatest of all perhaps, they are social problems.
  The area of Scotland is 30,302 square miles, 80 per cent. of that territory being hill or upland. There are 631 square miles of water and we have 787 islands, not all inhabitable. Some have been deserted because of the problem of transport. The Highlands of Scotland form 47 per cent. of the land surface, a total of 14,000 square miles, approximately half of Scotland. Only 300,000 people occupy that huge territory—an average of about 21 per square mile. The problem of providing transport in an area where there are only 21 people per square mile must be evident to all who have approached this problem. If we take the extreme of Sutherlandshire, there are seven people per square mile.
  The economic problems of Scotland likewise fall into two distinct areas. We have the industrial belt which stretches across the middle of Scotland and we have what might be called the landward area which is the area outside. The proportions here give an indication of our curious problem. The industrial belt is 1,000 square miles, but the landward area, including all this upland is 29,000 square miles.
  Both these parts are of great importance to the United Kingdom. The industrial belt, in the last year for which I have figures, produced 12 per cent. of Britain's coal, 13 per cent. of Britain's steel ingots, 45 per cent. of Britain's locomotives, 25 per cent. of its coal-mining machinery, 50 per cent. of its steam-raising plant and 38 per cent. of its new ships. This industrial area which produces that great wealth is well equipped in regard to road and rail and even shipping, so far as that comes into it.
  One great gap remains. I want to emphasise this to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport. It is the gap in the A.1 road from the north to the south at Queensferry. One of these days I hope that the right hon. Gentleman or his successor will take steps to establish a Forth road bridge. I am glad to say that preparations have been going

  1111
  on that were laid down by my right hon. Friend two or three years ago and preliminary drawings and work have been completed. When the armament programme comes to an end or starts to taper off, steel may be available, and it may be that the steel works will be looking for outlets for their steel. I hope the Minister of Transport will bear in mind this gap in the Scottish road system and the Forth road bridge.
  The main problem of Scotland is a human problem; that is, to keep people on the land. The secret is transport. The landward area, which might seem with its scattered population not to be of great importance, also makes a great contribution to United Kingdom welfare. It produces 33 per cent. of the United Kingdom fish landings. It produces 60 per cent. of its herrings. It produces 30 per cent of its sheep. It produces the highest quality of cattle in the world and has probably the highest proportion of T.T. herds in any country of Europe.
  Some 50 per cent. of the United Kingdom timber resources lie in this area and we are now producing a considerable quantity of hydraulic power. If the gas turbine proves itself capable of working on peat or products of peat, the solid areas of peat in Sutherlandshire and elsewhere will also prove a valuable source of power. This great area cannot be returned to the wild. If de-population were to go steadily on, that would be the result. If the nation is to ensure that this part of the country is maintained, we must provide transport so that the people who live in it can reach their homes and produce their goods and have them delivered to markets.
  It would be right to refer to what the Labour Government did during their period of office. During that time, I am sorry to say, the Minister of Transport—probably this applies also to the present Minister—was called upon more than any other Minister in the Government to make sacrifices in order to deal with the problem of cuts in capital investment. At one time all new road development was cut down to nothing in the way of Estimates. Whether the present Minister has been more fortunate in recent adjustments, we shall have to wait and see.
  But in spite of that having to be imposed upon the Minister of Transport,
  1112
  I am glad that the Government agreed that, so far as Scotland was concerned, the great main transport developments in the landward area should continue. The main ring road round the north of Scotland was within only a short distance of being completed. The only part remaining, I think, was between Tongue and Cape Wrath. I hope that this road is to be completed and will not be stopped at this late stage.
  In addition, there were to be five trunk roads and the crofter roads. The 1935 programme was not ours, but, in spite of difficulties, that programme of 1,200 miles of class I roads was continued. For piers, we had a programme of £529,000 over five years. So far as ferries are concerned, a 100 per cent. grant was given to complete these ferries. I should be very glad if the Minister will give some particulars as to what progress is being made in regard to the ferries, the piers, and the developments that have been going on over these years.
  A valuable direct addition to that work was the work being done in connection with hydro-electric power and in connection with afforestation, which, incidentally, has provided valuable and very fine roads into a part of the country which otherwise would have lain isolated for many a long day.
  Mr. John MacLeod: The right hon. Gentleman said that a 100 per cent. grant had been given to take over the ferries, What ferries is he talking about?
  Mr. Woodburn: There are various ferries, and the Government offered a 100 per cent. grant, I think, if the local authorities would take them over and run them. I do not know how many have been taken over, and I should like the Minister to say what progress has been made in this regard.
  When we look at the problem, it does not seem that there can be any solution at all by private enterprise. That is not a criticism of private enterprise. The fundamental basis of private enterprise is that people take on activities out of which they can make a profit. No one even in his wildest dreams could show how anybody could make a profit out of a transport system that gave adequate services to the whole of the Highland area. I challenge any Member on the other side to give instances of how it could be done.

  1113
  If hon. Members opposite agree—and I am sure that they do—then quite clearly this problem must be tackled by the nation. It is not an economic matter. It is a social matter, and it cannot be measured by economics. Therefore, there is no point in applying the economic measurement of private enterprise to a problem that must be dealt with socially. Every Government has recognised this. The subsidy to the MacBrayne steamers has been an explicit recognition that it is the duty of the nation to see that transport is provided in that area at costs which the people can afford to pay.
  I deeply regret that the question of transport, by some freak of politics in the last Parliament, has been a symbol of Tory faith. That will vitiate the whole approach to this matter by hon. Members opposite who feel that the prestige of their whole party is involved in sustaining something, no matter how stupid it may be. I hope, however, that this will not be the case with Scottish transport, and that this will be dealt with as a practical issue—as it is a practical issue—and not one of political theory.
  Sir David Robertson: The right hon. Member has referred to the need for great developments for fulfilling transport obligations in the north in areas such as Sutherland, because it was quite beyond the power of private enterprise to do so. Will he explain why it was, when that situation arose two years ago in the lifetime of the second Socialist Government since the war, that his successor as
  Secretary of State for Scotland went to the Duke of Westminster and said, "Transport is breaking down. The Transport Commission has turned its back on it. We will accept no responsibility whatsoever"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—and brought in—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members make interventions, they should be short, otherwise by the time the intervention is finished the House has forgotten what the hon. Member who had the Floor was saying.
  Mr. Woodburn: In any case, I do not see the point of the hon. Member's intervention. It has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. Whether the nation asks the Duke of Westminster to do something or does it itself does not
  1114
  get away from the point that the problem of the Highlands can be tackled only by the nation as a whole and not by private enterprise, which must depend on a profit. The point, therefore, was not a sound one, and I hope that, since our time is to be rather shorter than usual, hon. Members will allow me to finish at the earliest possible moment.
  The question of nationalisation or the reverse is a totally false issue. It is a "phoney" issue even between the two sides of the House; it is not a matter of principle. The Conservatives have nationalised a great many things. They have not objected to the nationalisation of the mines, the railways, or many other things, and they have no intention of reversing them. Therefore, continually to bring in this question is to fog our minds and not to allow us to apply our thoughts properly to the real issues.
  What we are doing is to try to find a practical way of dealing with the transport needs of Scotland. I am not talking, from a party or political viewpoint when I say to the Minister that everybody who has looked at this question has come to the one conclusion that transport in Scotland must be a comprehensive service. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, quite frankly, whether he can see any other way of organising efficient transport in Scotland except as a comprehensive service.
  During the years I was in office, one of the main criticisms from hon. Members opposite was of over-centralisation. That may have been a legitimate criticism. Here, again, is a practical question. The point is, who is to decide what is the degree of centralisation? That must be examined in a practical way. It is a matter, not for politicians, but for transport people, and for some inquiry apart from political party controversy.
  Everyone agrees that there should be the maximum devolution. I speak for my hon. Friends, and I have statements from the other side of the House. Everyone pays lip-service, at least, to the need for maximum devolution. But who is to decide? This seems to be a matter that would very closely affect the terms of the Royal Commission who have just been appointed. If they have to find out what are the terms of devolution in administrative affairs in Scotland, it is a very thin line between the administration

  1115
  of the Scottish Office in regard to roads and the administration of transport in other parts of the country. I suggest, therefore, that this is a fit subject to hand to the Royal Commission for them to examine. What should be the degree of centralisation.
  The terms of reference for the Royal Commission have given some people the impression that a steam hammer is being used to crack a nut. But it may be a tough nut that they are cracking. There are great resistances to these things, but nevertheless, this is another nut that they might crack, and I suggest to the Secretary of State for Scotland that he pass this on to the Royal Commission. I take it that if the Government do so, they will not begin to interfere with Scottish transport until they find out what the result is to be.
  I gathered from answers which the Secretary of State has given to Questions that he has had no time to make inquiry into road transport, and I know that the Government have not had the time. Therefore, it seems desirable that someone should inquire into this question before we start messing it up. I think the most suitable instrument at hand is the Royal Commission.
  Of course, inquiries have been made, not on a political basis, by the Scottish
  Council for Industry. That is an authoritative body in Scotland on which the trade unions, the local authorities, the banks and the chambers of commerce are represented. So far as there is a representative body interested in transport, that is the body. It made a recommendation to the Minister of Transport, and I should be glad to hear what was his answer or what were his repercussions to that statement.
  I should like the House to notice one or two of the conclusions which the Council have come to. Although some of the members may be Conservatives they are interested first in the industrial side of the problem. Even after the Government stated their intention to denationalise road transport the conclusion says that they want
  "The maximum possible devolution of authority to Scotland in the policy and operation in consultation with other transport authorities, of the transport systems."
  1116
  They go on to say:
  "Speedy application of measures for securing the greatest practicable integration of the transport services—"
  and I should like the Minister to note this phrase—
  "by which alone in the view of the Council the maximum efficiency can be obtained at least cost."
  That is clearly impracticable without public ownership. They say:
  "All property is vested in the Commission and should remain so"
  and, so far as Scotland is concerned, they go on to say:
  "It would seem desirable that the Scottish Transport Authority should retain ownership of the road haulage which is already publicly owned so that authority can effectively integrate its road and rail services …"
  I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Transport how, if integration is an essential for efficiency and a good service in Scotland, it can be achieved if the Scottish transport system is broken up into fragments? They suggest a Scottish transport authority to bring together rail, road, air, canal and ports services to treat Scottish transport as a comprehensive means of satisfying the social and economic needs of Scotland. I think the idea is sound.
  I am not prepared to examine what degree of power should go to the Scottish transport authority, but it would seem a sensible thing at the moment to have the member representing Scotland on the British Transport Commission presiding over the executive heads of all these bodies in Scotland to see that there is some co-ordination of the policy, planning and economies which might be effected by integration.
  The Transport Commission have recently reported and in their Report they show great progress made in this matter. New depots are being constructed to promote road and rail co-ordination and to secure economies. They are taking steps to co-ordinate transport in the winter. When transport breaks down through snowstorms and other things, the two services could be mutually complementary and save a great deal of trouble. They have set up a joint committee on rail and road haulage and the docks with traders and farmers
  "To advise traders on their transport problems and enlist their co-operation in the event, and indeed, in advance of any emergency."

  1117
  They have already found opportunities to bring in road transport to relieve congestion in marshalling yards and—what is very important—recently, when the foot-and-mouth disease caused such havoc throughout Scotland, because we have these great resources of nationalised road transport they were able to get vehicles from all over the place and use them to alleviate that disaster. They have also arranged for the transfer and exchange of staffs in order to economise in staffs.
  Another point which struck me was that they have appointed an officer to be jointly responsible to the Road and Rail Executives who is to deal with the collection and delivery services. All the great parcel organisation will no longer be either road or rail, but will utilise both services in the best possible way by a joint collection and delivery service. They have also established what is bound to be an economy—I do not see how the Minister can say otherwise—an organisation for the maintenance of road and rail vehicles.
  Road transport vehicles will be maintained as well as rail vehicles without having duplicate organisations and duplicate workshops. That seems a great economy. In Scotland, moreover, a great many of the old depots have been sold as an economy and the vehicles have been brought together in one place. I cannot see how the organisation can be split up as easily as the Government propose.
  Traffic is also being transferred to road or rail as it becomes more economical. I believe that schemes are being prepared for the Clyde, Aberdeen and Dundee. The Cameron Committee, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred the other day, has also reported. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what has happened to the Report about the Clyde, Aberdeen and Dundee. That is very important for the whole of transport and for those towns. In Scotland, economies have been made. I would instance what happened when the Campbelltown and Clyde steamer was taken off. Transport was immediately able to come in and put vehicles on to go round to Campbelltown. That would not necessarily have happened under private enterprise because there would not be a profit to be gained, but the nationalised trans-
  1118
  port provided this because it was a service.
  Major McCallum: There was a service running at the time; steamers were running.
  Mr. Woodburn: Yes, but when the steamers were taken off a road transport service was required. It was of a different character, but it was put on sufficiently to make up for the loss of the steamers.
  Major McCallum: The same lorries.
  Mr. Woodburn: Yes, but that does not dispose of the point that if there had not been any profit in that area, as no private enterprise person is obliged to be a philanthropist, transport would not be provided in the Highlands unless it produced a profit.
  Major McCallum: It was providing a profit.
  Mr. Woodburn: When the hon. and gallant Member speaks, will he be prepared to say that there are no parts of the Highlands which are denied transport because private enterprise cannot provide it as there is no profit for those who provide it? I am surprised at the hon. and gallant Member, who represents a Highland constituency, asserting that we have to depend on profit making in order to provide services to the Highlands.
  Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the steamer services to Campbelltown were withdrawn and the reason given was that there was no profit?
  Mr. Woodburn: Exactly; clearly, the Highlands must depend on a public service. I challenge any hon. Member from the Highlands, or elsewhere, to show how the Highlands can be served on an economic, profit-making basis. The hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) can start with the MacBrayne steamers and show how they can be made to pay without a subsidy. If they will run without a subsidy the right hon. Gentleman will be delighted.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. Member is talking about steamers which were withdrawn by the nationalised service.
  Mr. Woodburn: That is quite wrong.

  1119
  I now return to what was done elsewhere in Scotland. The road haulage organisation has now set about establishing a depot in Inverness. It is not being established as an economic organisation, but because it is necessary to provide transport in the Highlands. It will be provided as part of the Scottish national transport organisation. If it is not provided it will mean that there will not be a depot there capable of dealing with the re-development of road transport which should take place in the Highlands.
  As an example of the disadvantage the Highlands are under, the rate charged from Garve to Ullapool, a distance of 32 miles, is about 50s. a ton. The same form of transport from Glasgow to Edinburgh, a distance of 42 miles, costs 21s. 6d. per ton. In other words, the Highlands have to pay more than twice the charge per ton for a lesser distance. Quite clearly, that is a handicap to the Highlands, in spite of anything which the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends from the Highlands may say.
  If the British road transport authority is able and willing, as I understand it will be, to provide transport on these roads at the normal rate that is charged—the flat rate which the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) wants for Aberdeen—that will be a great advantage to those parts of the Highlands, and I hope that the authority will do that in spite of the hon. Members behind the right hon. Gentleman who resist it. We would like to see this road transport haulage organisation, which is developing for the first time a comprehensive system radiating out from Inverness—
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Would my right hon. Friend allow me to intervene on a point of correction? He said that the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) said that she wanted a flat rate for Aberdeen. She said in a recent debate that she did not want it; but I want it.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: As I have been directly challenged, may I be allowed to say that I think the hon. and learned Member who represents the other half of Aberdeen could not have been listening to my speech—it was one of many speeches delivered on the same subject—in which I said quite clearly that I cer-
  1120
  tainly want a flate rate for fish throughout the country so that it will benefit the port of Aberdeen.
  Mr. Woodburn: I apologise if I misunderstood either Member for Aberdeen. I heard the noble Lady say something today about a flat rate, and I thought she was referring to Aberdeen. I apologise if I have misrepresented either Member.
  I think I have, quite without any colouring, made out that Scotland is a unit so far as the transport problem is concerned. I think there is something more to be said, which I recommend to the Minister of Transport. There is a possibility of Scotland being a laboratory for experiment to see how well integrated transport will work, because to a large extent Scotland is self-contained in many respects, and it is of sufficient size to make it possible to work a reasonable unit of transport which will be practicable to manage.
  I recommend that approach to the Minister. I recognise that he came to the Ministry to carry out a policy which was already fixed. I suggest to him that he should recommend to the Prime Minister that if he cannot drop the Transport Bill, which I regard politically as a menace to the whole country, he should at least leave Scotland out of it altogether and let us try our own methods. Scotland is not a practicable job for private enterprise; I do not think that anybody can maintain that it is.
  It is a great national responsibility to the nation. I am sure that every hon. Member wishes this great land to develop economically. There is a great opportunity here. Forests, farming, food and tourism—steamers, road transport and air—all offer great opportunities. The right hon. Gentleman recognises that air transport in the Highlands can never be economic; whether it is undertaken by civil aviation or some other organisation, Scotland has to be treated as one unit.
  The helicopter may open up in the Highlands opportunities almost undreamt of because it can hop over obstacles which it would cost millions of pounds to clear. If the helicopter can be developed there are hundreds of places in the Highlands where it will open up possibilities of a good life and residence which we cannot envisage at the present stage of development.

  1121
  Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not sacrifice Scotland's progress merely on the altar of Tory dogma. We all have our dogmas, I agree, but in this case I have presented a case which, apart altogether from our party and political differences, justifies the treatment of Scotland as a unit, that justifies the Government not interfering in the developments that have taken place in Scottish transport. If the right hon. Gentleman allows the growth which is going on to develop to fruition, and if road, rail, steamer and air transport are co-ordinated, I am certain that there is an opportunity to make Scotland an example not only to this country but to the world.
  4.36 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I am glad that we have at last been able to have this debate on Scottish transport. I am sure that we all sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman and regretted that last week the plans which he thought he had finalised had to be put aside for other Government business. I feel, however, that the delay has perhaps not been altogether to our disadvantage.
  In the meantime, we have had a debate on the broad question of transport in the United Kingdom which set out fairly clearly, as was necessary, the views of the Government and the Opposition. Out of that the Scottish situation has perhaps emerged with greater clarity, and I think we all know a little more about it than we did last week. Therefore, the delay has perhaps been worth while.
  As I expected, the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), has referred to the broad question of transport and has dealt partly with the road question, and in the latter part of his speech with civil aviation. I will venture to try to answer in the same way. I agree with him that Scotland is one unit and that we should aim at a comprehensive attitude towards this matter; we are in agreement on that.
  As the right hon. Gentleman has said, we are concerned with the whole field of transport—road, rail, air, sea, etc. It would be fair to say, however, that our immediate concern is with road and rail transport, especially in the Highlands, and with the future development of our air services. I should like to deal with both those matters, first describing the
  1122
  situation as it is and then going on to discuss the steps that can be taken to improve conditions. I shall try, in the course of my remarks, to deal with the points which were very properly raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
  When we turn to civil aviation we enter, I admit, a controversial field. I am not averse to controversy, but first let us establish the facts. This year, Scottish Air Services, operated as they are almost exclusively by B.E.A. are substantially better than they were a year ago, and we are all glad about that. There is an increase of more than 40 per cent. in the frequency of services on the trunk routes between Scotland and England. The Edinburgh services have been re-timed and now make possible a day return journey to London.
  The increase in local services has not been quite so noticeable. The strengthening of those services has been mostly in the direction of increasing the peak capacity which has been doubled between Stornoway and Inverness. This summer, for the first time, connections have been introduced between Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester and Orkney. The programme has also restored the direct services between Orkney and Aberdeen to Edinburgh and London which were withdrawn last year. On the other hand, there has been a reduction in the service between Renfrew and Belfast, from 41 to 29 flights a week. But the B.E.A. have promised to operate extra flights on peak days when the traffic justifies it, and it may well be that, in the end, there will be no reduction at all.
  The House will be interested to learn that in the first five months of this year 101 ambulance flights on behalf of the Department of Health have been made to the Islands. Last year, 1951, was a disappointing year for Scottish Aviation—I am talking especially of the Highlands and Islands. The number of passengers carried by the Highlands and Islands Service was 7,000 less than the year before. The reason for that was that there had been a curtailment in the frequency of the service.
  As we all recognise, and as the right hon. Gentleman said a few minutes ago, the Highland net-work is uneconomic because it is operated by aircraft which are not tailor-made for the job and because of the short distances to be covered. In 1951 the operating deficit of

  1123
  the Scottish Service, including the trunk services, was £300,000. In the year ending March, 1951, it was £291,000. So far, no means have been found to make that service profitable, and for those reasons there have been periodic inquiries into the service so as to ensure that the resources are employed to the best advantage.
  The other day there was some discussion about the kind of machines used. I think the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) raised the point. The House will like to know that the services have been improved, and the capacity has also been increased by introducing Pionairs on all the routes previously operated by Dakotas. In the view of many hon. Members the Rapide ought to be replaced, and the House should know that this has already been done on the Orkney-Aberdeen service. I should inform the House, also, that B.E.A. are intending, in October of this year, to replace all Rapides with Pionairs on all the other Island services, except between Glasgow and Barra, and the ambulance service. This is by no means—
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: What is to happen in Barra on the airfields used by the ambulance service? What is to replace the Rapide where, at the moment, nothing but a Rapide can be used in Barra?
  Mr. Stewart: That is a technical point. I will try to find out, and give the hon. Member the answer.
  This transfer is not regarded by anyone as ideal, and we have to find a suitable substitute for the Rapide. That is a difficulty which I frankly confess, but we are perfectly well aware of the urgency and importance of the problem.
  The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of helicopters, in which I am greatly interested. We are not neglecting that matter in the slightest degree. I feel that the helicopter has a high potential value in Scotland, and especially in the Highlands. We do not need any convincing of the unique importance of this very handy machine, and the part which helicopters can play in linking up the Highlands and thereby extending the tourist trade.
  1124
  I think I may be allowed to interpose a personal note here. Scotland, and Perthshire in particular, has a special interest in helicopters. It was a Perthshire man, Mr. Kay, who, in the late 1920s, created with his own hands one of the first helicopters ever seen in Scotland. I was exceedingly interested in that and did everything I could, in the early 1930s, as some hon. Members may remember, to persuade the authorities to give that very ingenious man an opportunity to develop his machine. For one reason or other, for technical reasons about which I do not know, the project did not advance. I sometimes think that if it had we might be in a better position today. But that is a very personal note.
  I had intended telling the House about further plans for helicopters, but I feel that perhaps I am taking up too much time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I admit it is an interesting matter. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the First Report of the inter-Departmental Helicopter Committee, which was published in March, 1951. It suggested that the helicopter might be no more uneconomic than a fixed-wing aircraft in the Western Isles and that the use of the helicopter exclusively there
  "would make possible the surrender of a number of aerodromes, with consequent saving to public funds even after allowing for the provision of alternative helicopter landing areas."
  These various projects await the development of a considerably safer aircraft—
  Mr. Rankin: May I ask the hon. hon. Member—
  Mr. Stewart: If I may be allowed to finish this sentence I will give way.
  It was the unanimous view of every witness before that Committee that the twin-engine helicopter would be essential for inter-city and over-water operations before these could be attempted on a commercial basis. The twin-engine helicopter likely to come into commercial use is the 10/12-seater Bristol 173, which made its first flight in January of this year. It is estimated that at least a 2-year period of development flying will be necessary before this machine can be used on a limited commercial basis.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is the cost of a helicopter?
  Mr. Stewart: I do not know what the cost of this is and I do not think we have come quite to that point, because it is not yet there.
  Mr. Rankin: Would the Minister make one point a little clearer? He has said that the helicopter might not be more uneconomic than a fixed-wing machine of the same capacity. Could be give us any comparative figures of the cost of running a helicopter and a fixed-wing machine of the same capacity?
  Mr. Stewart: It so happens that the first helicopter was flown into London today and landed, and, therefore, we shall soon begin to understand what this really costs, and be able to compare the cost with other planes.
  Mr. Rankin: So that the first statement of the Minister about the cost is just guess-work?
  Mr. Stewart: I was quoting from the Report of the inter-Departmental Committee. That was a Committee of highly qualified people who, with the best figures available to them, offered to the country an estimate of the cost. I do not think the hon. Member wishes to be rude to that Committee—
  Mr. Rankin: Not at all. I do not wish to be rude to the Committee, but the Committee ought not to be rude to us. I have tried, this is my third attempt, to get the comparative figures which the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend said could not be given at present. I was interested in the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Can they now be given?
  Mr. Stewart: We are all interested in that, so let us hope that the figures will soon be made available and then we can all agree.
  I will now pass to the more general features of the Scottish air services. This was the subject of the keenest interest in our debate on 16th July, and here we pass from concord to a conflict of view. Like most controversies, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree—in fact, he almost said so—this controversy has been be-fogged by misunderstanding and prejudice and be-devilled by extremists. To put it bluntly and baldly, the issue is whether the present B.E.A. Scottish network should be continued, or whether
  1126
  the services should be handed over to a private company, and, if so, on what terms?
  Broadly speaking, that is the issue. On the face of it it would seem that the two sides of the House are in conflict, but I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said: he said that it is a false or phoney conflict. No doubt he was recalling the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), who opened the debate on civil aviation on 16th July for the Opposition. He spoke in unmistakable terms. He said:
  "We on this side of the Committee …"
  That is, the Socialist side of the Committee—
  "… do not hold any bigoted or dogmatic opinion as to the comparative efficiency of private as against publicly-owned air transport. We believe there are appropriate fields for both."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 2157.]
  Every reasonable man should take that view. The question is, Does Scotland offer an appropriate field—
  Mr. John Wheatley: No.
  Mr. Stewart: May I put the question? Does Scotland offer an appropriate field for efficient private air transport? I admit that it is a debatable point. Are we fully satisfied that the publicly-owned air services now in the field are adequate and efficient?
  Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman has just paid a magnificent tribute to them.
  Mr. Stewart: Surely no one would say that they are adequate. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) would not say that. Even with the improvements brought about this year, the fact is that great parts of Scotland, and most of the outlying territory, are completely unserved by air transport. So it cannot be adequate. Is it efficient? Is any hon. Member prepared to say that there is no room in the present services for greater efficiency? There is no such hon. Member in the House. Therefore, in the interest of Scotland—
  Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman is making an assumption which he has no right to make. He is saying that there is not an hon. Member in the House who is prepared to dispute what he has said.

  1127
  I am prepared to dispute it, dealing with the background in which he said it. He is not presenting that properly.
  Mr. Stewart: We all know that the hon. Member intends to make a speech. We shall look forward with interest to it so long as he does not make it while I am trying to make mine.
  In the interests of Scotland, both Highland and Lowland, is there not, because of those doubts which are in the minds of all of us, a case—indeed, an imperative demand—for a fresh re-examination of the problem? If we could find a company of enterprising and substantial men ready to take over and develop the Scottish services in accordance with an approved plan providing for high efficiency, safety and continuity at lower costs to the taxpayer and user alike, ought we not at least to consider such a proposal?
  Mr. Thomas Steele: What about a subsidy?
  Mr. Stewart: I am coming to that point.
  Is there not at least a case for examination? To spurn such a proposition out of blind prejudice would be to do an ill-service if not a disastrous service to Scotland. This Government are not prepared to allow prejudice or bigotry to deflect them from what they regard as the path of duty and common sense. Therefore, we are considering the possibilities of an alternative service, and we shall consider them fully and properly.
  Mr. Rankin: What is the alternative company?
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: There is only one.
  Mr. Stewart: We have reached no decision to transfer the services to a private company nor to any special company. Neither has the principle of subsidising a private company been accepted. We are, therefore, completely uncommitted in this matter. We have no commitments of any kind, nor shall we enter upon any commitments unless and until we are satisfied that the alternative we may favour is demonstably for the decided advantage of Scotland and its people. That is the view of the Government. That is what we propose to do.
  1128
  I cannot believe that the solid, sensible, increasingly air-minded people of the North will do other than commend our action in this respect. I feel justified in inviting the support, co-operation and the good will of hon. Members in all parts of the House in the inquiries which we are now making. That is what we are doing at this stage.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman now prepared to give a specific assurance that in no circumstances will a private company be given a subsidy of public money?
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member is asking me to go further. I have told him that we have no commitments. We advance upon this inquiry with open minds. Whatever is the view of the Government it will be placed openly before the House, and it will be for the House to determine the matter. I have explained the attitude of mind with which we approach the problem.
  Mr. Woodburn: This is an important point. The hon. Gentleman seems to be adopting a spirit of inquiry to find out the facts. I take it that he would think that it was equally reasonable to do the same thing about road transport before he interferes with that.
  Mr. Stewart: I shall come to road transport later; I am now dealing with the question of civil aviation.
  I know that the House would like me to say a few words about Prestwick before I leave the subject of civil aviation. I wish to make some comment because, by a series of strange events of which some hon. Members are aware, Prestwick has become one of the touchstones by which Scotsmen are inclined to judge the patriotism and sincerity of any Government. If we fail to do what is right by Prestwick no doubt we shall suffer. If, on the other hand, the Government are given time to do what they want to do for this famous airport—whose contribution to victory in the last war is not yet fully recognised—we shall all gain by that action.
  The needs of Prestwick are well known and accepted. They were set out in the Report of the Clydesmuir Committee. The only question is the rate at which these recommendations can be implemented. The Government begin by re-

  1129
  asserting that, next to London, Prestwick is, and will continue to be, the leading airport in the United Kingdom. Let us be plain about that. That is the status we give it. Subject to the limitation—
  Mr. Rankin: What is to be spent on it?
  Mr. Stewart: Subject to the limitation of materials, manpower and the capital investment programme, it is the intention of the Government to bring Prestwick up to the highest state of efficiency in the shortest possible time. Already, considerable progress is being made in many directions. If the House wish I can give details about the work now being done on the accommodation for transit passengers, the overrun, the road, future development, and so on.
  Progress is being made in preparation for the additional runway in which all of us have so much interest. Plans are under consideration for the construction of a new subsidiary runway of 6,000 feet with 500 feet grass overrun, which would remedy the defect which we all know about—the orientation of the main runway—and make Prestwick usable by aircraft on 99.9 per cent. of occasions. A new set of terminal buildings is also being planned; but I must be frank and warn hon. Members that only the planning stage has been reached so far in either of these considerable projects. Together, they may possibly cost between £4 million and £5 million.
  In the present time of restrictions on capital investment and the heavy similar commitments we have elsewhere, it is clear that the major operations involved cannot start for a considerable time. It is impossible, therefore, as I think all reasonable people will appreciate—and I am being perfectly frank with the House—to reach a decision upon this matter now, but I want to repeat the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) when, in January last, speaking for the Government, he said that, until a new runway had been built, Prestwick could not operate on 100 per cent. efficiency, and the right hon. Gentleman expressed his urgent wish that this should be achieved as soon as possible. I am sure that that is still the urgent wish of the Government.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of Prestwick, could he give us an assurance that the headquarters of the Scottish Civil Aviation Department are not to be transferred from Prestwick to Edinburgh?
  Mr. Stewart: I am not aware of that, but I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman's question before the debate finishes.
  I pass now from the rarefied heights of air travel to more solid progress on the earth. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asked me one or two questions, and I can give the answers to some of them at once. As regards the Forth road bridge, I am as keen on it as he is, and, when it is possible, I hope it will be done, but everybody knows that we cannot start doing that sort of thing now.
  Mr. Woodburn: The point is whether the Government will be ready to start whenever there is a slump in the steel industry. It takes a long time to get ready, and we would not like any hiatus to occur.
  Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the point, and I do not think there is any doubt that the various agencies will be ready to co-operate—and operate—when it appears possible to make a real advance.
  On the subject of ferries and piers, I could give the right hon. Gentleman a lot of information, because I have pages of it here, and it is detailed. I do not think, however, that the House would want me, at this point, to go into too much detail.
  On the question of the Royal Commission and devolution, the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the Commission has been given wide terms of reference, but those terms do not include inquiries into the nationalised industries. I think everybody will see the sense of that, because some of these industries are in a state of uncertainty—shall we put it?—just now, and all of them—coalmining, for example—are highly specialised, and I do not think that the Commission would be qualified to examine matters of that kind. They have very wide terms of reference, and I rather think that they will be able to cover a good deal of the ground referred to by the right hon. Gentleman.
  With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on the future organisation of road transport services, I hope he will not mind

  1131
  if I do not deal with them, because I have other things I want to say, and because my right hon. Friend would like to answer the right hon. Gentleman later.
  On this question of transport on land, we are up against the two problems of road and rail—the integrated services, of which we have heard so much but seen so little in recent years. Let me take the case of the Highlands, since it is there that transport and transport costs loom so large. There is no dispute about the facts. Here, again, we can turn to the Report of a substantial committee. The Cameron Committee made it abundantly plain that there were three major considerations:
  (a) The Highland suffer a general disadvantage from high transport costs in all branches of activity, apart from those which are directly or indirectly subsidised.
  (b) Isolated areas are specially handicapped.
  (c) Certain manufacturing industries are able to operate profitably in the Highlands, but the range of industries which can hope to do so is extremely narrow."
  The chief recommendations of the Committee were, first, that the transport system should be made more efficient, and, second, that there should be a deliberate policy of lowering transport charges over long distances. The question is what has been done to implement these proposals. I shall not weary the House with a long list of the works now being carried out on many roads, harbours, piers and ferries throughout the Highlands, but perhaps a single reference to roads would indicate the effort that is now being made.
  Even in the present difficult times, works of new construction on the roads are proceeding under the Crofter Counties Scheme, and the total estimated cost is £200,000, which will be met entirely by the Ministry of Transport. Speaking on behalf of the Scottish Office, I should like to say that we receive, and are most happy to receive, the most generous assistance from the Ministry of Transport and from my right hon. Friend in all matters relating to Scotland, and I wish to thank him very much for it.
  Secondly, expenditure on the maintenance of classified roads in the Highlands, which amounted to £370,000 in 1950–51, to £433,000 in 1951–52, is estimated to cost £503,000 in the present year. New works are also proceeding on
  1132
  minor roads in the Highlands with grants from the Department of Agriculture for Scotland estimated at £390,000.
  These improvements, considerable as they are, are not, of course, enough to satisfy all the requests made by my hon. Friends from the Highlands or of the local authorities which have approached us. I know that they do not satisfy all of them, but I doubt whether this Government, or any other, will ever satisfy all the Highland hon. Members. That is almost an impossibility. Nevertheless, the list of works proceeding is a formidable one, and when to that list is added the very substantial grants now made to Highland local authorities from the Equalisation Fund, some of them rising to as much as 89 per cent. of the total local authority expenditure, I do not think that any fair-minded person could say that this is treating the Highlands unreasonably.
  Mr. Woodburn: Our party introduced the equalisation plan.
  Mr. Stewart: I was not speaking about its introduction, and I give the right hon. Gentleman and his party full credit for it, but this Parliament is carrying it out. We are a large happy family in this matter.
  The works of which I have been speaking go some way towards meeting the first recommendation of the Cameron Committee, namely, that the transport system should be made more efficient, and, to that extent, they ought to result in cheaper transport. But the problem of the high cost of transport remains, and, in some respects, even becomes more severe. I have every sympathy with hon. Members who come from the Highlands when they make their strong demands upon us, as they have been doing for some time, and I wish it were possible more quickly to satisfy their needs.
  May I here interpolate into my speech a report to the House on the matter of a flat rate transport scheme for fish. In the annual Report of the White Fish Authority published on 8th July, the Authority discussed the introduction of a transport charges equalisation scheme, and re-affirmed their decision, which they had announced in December last, to submit a statutory scheme under Section (6) of the Sea Fish Industries Act, 1951, for the confirmation of Ministers and the approval of Parliament.

  1133
  This scheme has not yet been submitted, and the Government have not therefore been able to consider it. From recent discussions which I have had with the Authority, I know that, as a result of factual information which has become available since the Report was submitted, serious practical difficulties have been encountered. I am assured, however, that the Authority have the matter under the most active consideration, and I hope that an early conclusion may be reached.
  May I now revert to the general question? Road and rail costs in the Highlands are high, but in the case of the railways I must remind the House of the legal and administrative difficulties which stand in the way of speedy action at the present time. It is not that we are unwilling to act in this matter; it is that under the Transport Act, 1947—and I come now to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman—an Act for which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were responsible, it is impossible to review, much less to alter, the transport charges under which the Highlands suffer, without going through—as I think—the most cumbersome, time—wasting and exasperating procedure.
  Under that Act which is now the laws of the land, Scotland's only hope of relief in relation to charges is for the interests affected—in this case the various industries and the local authorities in the Highlands—to make representations to the British Transport Commission when they are preparing a new draft charges scheme and to the Transport Tribunal when they are settling the scheme. I am advised that under this procedure, which is inescapable, even if representations were made today, two years at least would elapse before the Tribunals' decision could be announced, and even then there would be no assurance that the decision would be favourable.
  Clearly we must try to find a quicker solution.
  Mr. Manuel Mr. Manuel rose—
  Mr. Stewart: I know the hon. Gentleman's point. Clearly, we must try to find a quicker way even if the charges scheme of which the hon. Gentleman is thinking remains—and I think it will—and it was with this problem in mind that the Scottish proposals in the new Transport Bill were framed.
  1134
  Under the Government's new proposals, a regional railway authority for Scotland will be created, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, with far-ranging powers. The first duty of this new Scottish authority will be to make a complete and searching investigation into all railway services, passenger and freight, in Scotland and to report the result of their findings—with any recommendations they may care to make—to the Transport Commission.
  I place great faith in this new authority, composed, as I trust it will be, of young, vigorous men determined to find a way out of the present morass of difficulties, and I think we can reasonably hope that with the greater decentralisation and flexibility which the Government will seek to ensure in the railway re-organisation, the Scottish authority may well be able to develop a new approach—I would like hon. Members to consider this most carefully—to the problem of Scottish rail transport which will have the effect of encouraging additional traffic at charges, both economic and attractive.
  Mr. James McInnes: Are we to understand that this new Scottish authority are to have delegated to them such functions as the Minister is now indicating? From reading the Transport Bill it would appear that the functions described there are very proscribed indeed. Is this a new decision on the part of the Government?
  Mr. Steele: The Under-Secretary prefaced his last long sentence by indicating and discussing the question of transport charges and freight rates. I thought we were going to get something from this area committee on those matters. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that this area authority will have some power over freight charges?
  Mr. Stewart: I am fully aware of the importance which hon. Members attach to this matter. I, too, attach importance to it and I have used very carefully chosen words. If hon. Members will look at HANSARD tomorrow they will see that all I have said is that we are entitled to hope that with the greater decentralisation and flexibility which the Government intend to ensure in the railway reorganisation, the Scottish authority may well be able to develop a new approach to the problems of rail transport—
  Mr. McInnes: That is your hope.
  Mr. Stewart: —which will have the effect, I hope, of encouraging additional traffic at charges both economic and attractive. The hon. Gentleman opposite says that is my hope. I have already described to the House that under the system which the party opposite gave us we cannot get anything done for the Highlands under two years. That is the position.
  Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman has made a most important statement. All expert railway authorities in the past and even the present inquiry, I believe, of the Scottish Council have disclosed the fact that Scotland has so many uneconomic areas that the Scottish railway system could not maintain its existing rates if it were on its own. Am I to take it from what the hon. Gentleman says that the midlands of Scotland are now to subsidise the uneconomic areas of the Highlands, and that Scotland is now economically to be cut off from the rest of the railway system?
  Mr. Stewart: No. The right hon. Gentleman must not assume anything of the kind; I have said nothing of the kind. The simple situation is this. Under the present system and procedure
  which we inherited from the Socialist Government nothing can be done for the Highlands for at least two years. I say that we must somehow alter that and quickly.
  I am saying to the House that with this in mind we are constituting this Scottish authority, and I ask hon. Members to consider more carefully than they have done hitherto the position of that authority. Given that new authority I have great hopes—and I speak with just a little knowledge of this—that we may get over some of our difficulties.
  Mr. Wheatley: The hon. Gentleman is raising a very important point. Am I to understand that he is proposing that this new railway authority in Scotland will have power to fix its own charges in relation to Scotland, because that was the impression created by his statement?
  Mr. Stewart Mr. Stewart indicated dissent.
  Mr. Wheatley: Then may we take it that this authority will not have the power to frame charges in relation to Scottish transport?
  Mr. Stewart: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that he is asking a question which neither I nor anybody else can answer at the moment. If he will refresh his memory about the contents of the Bill he will find that a new scheme has to be prepared for the constitution of the authority which has to be considered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is a lot of work to be done, and at the moment we do not know the details of the scheme. However, if the House is sensible enough to give us this Bill within a matter of two or three months, I can assure it that something will happen.
  Mr. Wheatley: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I do so because I want to find out some information about the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not know what the answer was. I find in the White Paper on Transport issued by Her Majesty's Government the following sentence:
  "Any areas will together continue to constitute a single entity for financial purposes and for the control of charges."
  If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, he would have found it in the White Paper prepared by his own Government.
  Mr. Stewart: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not suggesting that I do not know what I am talking about. I am quite aware of the sentence he has just read out. I have not said, and I am not to be understood as saying, any more than what will appear in HANSARD tomorrow. But I invite the House to consider the words I have used, because I believe they contain good hopes for Scotland.
  May I also remind hon. Members in this connection of the striking changes which we propose in the functions of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman referred to that. Here, too, our aim is to cut out unnecessary procedural delays. The new committee will have direct access not only to the Commission, but also for the first time to my right hon. Friend the Minister himself, and the committee's authority will extend not only over railway services as at present, but over nationalised road services as well.

  1137
  For the first time, therefore, Scotsmen in Scotland—in formal meeting—will be able to make an effective survey of the whole road and rail transport scene and in this way I believe will make a real beginning to the integration of services which so far has so noticeably eluded us.
  Finally, I repeat with regard to the proposals as a whole the words used by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on 22nd July when he said:
  "All those who recognise the present situation recognise the need for radical changes, but they may differ as to the form any change should take. I shall have the time, patience and readiness to listen to what they have to say. The broad structure of the bill represents the Government's intention. I would never be too proud to listen to any advice which may come from those who want to see this Bill work, and who recognise that the existing situation cannot indefinitely be tolerated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1952; Vol. 504, c 312.]
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I must remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a Supply Day and that he is talking about legislation.
  Mr. Stewart: You will be pleased to know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I have finished with that part of my speech.
  It is along those lines and in the spirit of eager, honest search for a better, cheaper, more efficient transport system—by road, rail, land and sea—for the benefit of the whole Scottish people, that we approach our task and do our duty.
  5.22 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Oswald: I am indeed grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for having called me to make my maiden speech in this Chamber. I crave the indulgence of right hon. and hon. Members in prefacing my remarks by paying tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Gilzean, who for some 27 years played a most important part in local and in national politics. He was a quiet, unassuming man who carried out his duties in a similar fashion to his predecessor, the late Mr. William Graham. I sincerely hope and trust that I shall be able to follow in that great tradition. I am sure that the House will join with me in wishing Mr. Gilzean continuation of the good health which he is now enjoying following a major operation.
  I am in a rather delicate situation in consequence of all my colleagues and friends advising and cautioning me that a
  1138
  maiden speech at all times should be non-controversial. As a result, my contribution will be somewhat restrained. Already much of what I had intended to say has been said from both of the Front Benches. I want to declare my interest in transport. I understand that it is the right and proper thing to do if one has an interest in the subject under debate. But my interests are primarily to see a comprehensive and integrated transport system instituted for the benefit of the Scottish people, and secondly, and of no less importance, to see that the operatives in the industry are given the very best conditions that the industry can afford.
  It was something of a shock to me when I examined Cmd. 8538, entitled "Transport policy." My immediate reaction was to think what a misnomer is the title, because the only reference to Scotland that I found in that White Paper came in the section dealing with railways, where Scotland was disposed of in six words:
  "Scotland will be a separate area."
  I wonder if the Secretary of State for Scotland has made himself conversant with the manifold problems of Scottish transportation and whether, when he consults with the Minister of Transport, whom I am glad to see present, some regard will be paid to those problems, because special consideration is an essential in dealing with Scottish transportation.
  Scottish transport also has scant mention in the Transport Bill. I wonder whether reasons for that can be given in the course of this debate; or was this omission deliberate in order to hide the fact that Scottish road passenger under-takings are running services which are quite unremunerative and therefore would not lend themselves very readily for sale to would-be purchasers, if it is the intention of the Government to sell them also to the highest bidder?
  I am certain that the House will agree with me that in the event of a breaking up of the ever-expanding services developed over the past four years, it is important to know whether the Government intend to condition the sale of road passenger transport with the proviso that existing services must be maintained. If that is not the intention it means, in effect, that the very lifeline of the farming and crofting communities beyond the Highland line in Scotland will be com-

  1139
  pletely disintegrated. Those farming and crofting communities are just as entitled to reasonable forms of transportation as their cousins in the built-up areas. I am extremely anxious to know whether those transport facilities, which it is the duty of present undertakings to provide, are to continue.
  I ask the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State for Scotland, or the Joint Under-Secretary, to tell the House who will be prepared to run services in the Scottish region which do not pay their way even at this moment. Are the Ministers aware that the unremunerative services are those where the average receipts per vehicle mile are less than the actual operating cost per vehicle mile of the individual company concerned?
  Are the Ministers aware that approximately 50 per cent. of the routes, as distinct from the services, are unremunerative? Are they aware that some 61 per cent. of the total number of services in Scotland do not pay their way? Perhaps this information could be passed on to the Departments so that they may check the statements which I am making. They are of paramount importance to the future of remote communities in Scotland.
  The amalgamation of the large omnibus companies in Scotland has made it possible to provide services to the general public. That same public is entitled to know now whether in the near future any disintegration of that Scottish group of omnibuses will mean that some services will stop because they do not make a profit and are therefore not a good selling speculation. I cannot foresee people with an eye to good business—and I have met them over many years as a full-time trade union official—buying up an unprofitable concern just to run it to please the general public. I should like an answer to that point if it is at all possible.
  The passing of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, was of paramount importance, especially to the operatives in the industry. Sections 19 and 93 of that Act gave to the men some form of guarantee of rates of wages and hours of work. That Act laid the foundation of safety for all road users. At the present moment the operatives have grave misgivings about
  1140
  their future, and they will assuredly contest any worsening of their conditions in the Scottish region.
  I have received dozens of resolutions from depots and garages in Scotland protesting strongly against the intentions of Her Majesty's Government because the men visualise a return to cut-throat competition and unroadworthy vehicles through lack of maintenance. I have passed to the Minister of Transport many of those resolutions, and I have no doubt that in due course the Department will send me acknowledgements. I speak with some authority on transport, because I am an ex-operative myself. I find, after checking, that the rolling stock of British Transport is in an excellent condition today compared with the conditions that existed before the passing of the 1947 Act. The days of keeping vehicles together with pieces of rope and wire have passed.
  There is another factor giving rise to resentment among the operatives in the road haulage and road passenger industry in Scotland, and it is again one of extreme importance. Consultations have reached a stage of finality in setting up consultative committees in nine areas in the Scottish region. A great deal of thought and effort were given by both sides of the industry—the trade unions and the management—with a view to enabling all grades to be represented on those consultative committees, the purpose of which was to discuss a variety of subjects connected with the smooth running of the undertaking. I regret to say that at this moment further progress is impracticable because the industry does not yet know what the Government's intentions are. Neither side is prepared to continue with those discussions until the Government fog has been dispersed.
  Is there no one on the Government's bus prepared to tell the Minister or whoever is at the wheel that more care should be taken along the road to economic recovery, or is there some truth in the story that is going around that the Prime Minister said to the Minister of Transport, "Steer with some caution, my friend," and the Minister replied to the Prime Minister, "I thought you were steering"? Perhaps the Government Front Bench are so intoxicated with their own verbosity that no attention is being

  1141
  paid to who is driving, and they will only know when the crash comes.
  The success of those joint consultations depends, first of all, on the attitude of mind of the participating parties. The whole basis of transport is service to the community, and the success of those consultations will only be attained by the most delicate application of human principles to all the grades. The prospect of success is being destroyed by the Government's present proposals which are assuredly hindering further progress. Transport is a national asset, upon the efficiency of which all branches of the industrial and social activities of the nation depend.
  Just when Scottish passenger transport is in a boom year there comes the shock that the Government intend to interfere. Plans for the future are naturally held up. Just when the industry is fulfilling the requirements of the 1947 Act in creating an integrated system, it is called upon to halt. It was no easy task to build up this system out of chaos—because chaos it was prior to the 1947 Act; it was no easy task to persuade some of the local authorities to enable bus companies to fulfil their obligations where road vehicles were required to replace railway passenger services that had been withdrawn.
  So much to the detriment of the clerical and administrative staffs has been said in the past and is still being said that I regard it as my bounden duty this evening to defend them. Those staffs carried out a most commendable job under great difficulties, and they are entitled to be given some guarantee for the future, because many of them gave up their former employment to come in to the road haulage and road passenger industries to give to the nation the benefit of their very valuable experience. Do the Government intend to throw those people onto the industrial scrap heap? What is to happen to them? The House is entitled to know, and so are the people who are employed in the respective grades.
  There has already been a tremendous disturbance among all ranks in the service. Disturbed conditions cannot possibly make for efficiency in any kind of industrial undertaking. Why cannot we now set those people's minds at rest by honestly telling them what the future will
  1142
  bring to them? On the road haulage side in Scotland we also have very virile resentment from the operatives. They are fully aware of past conditions under private enterprise. They know that an Act of Parliament was necessary to force employers to pay decent wages and provide good conditions in the road haulage industry. It was the only industry that required such an enactment to bring about decent wages and protection for the men.
  Those men also remember very clearly the conditions of their vehicles in those days compared to their excellent condition today. No wonder they are demonstrating. No wonder they are demanding that something should be done to put a stop to the sell-out of the road haulage industry once again to big business. The operatives do a great job of work. The roads in Scotland are no sinecure for men driving heavy loads at all hours of the day and night, even with perfectly running vehicles. They will also be throwing their weight into the combat against the disintegration of their industry—and they claim it is their industry just as much as it was the industry of the previous employers.
  The Government should reconsider the position with regard to Scotland as a whole. They should have plenty of time to consider public opinion during the next few weeks. I have had the opportunity to meet and have discussions with many people who are closely allied to the Scottish transport industry. No one has a favourable word for the Government's transport plan, because the general opinion is that no plan exists. It has been said that the proposed Bill is on a par with the Home Guard Bill, which required so much amending from this side of the House before it was presentable. This Bill appears to have been compiled hastily, without due care and attention, and Scottish transport affairs, like many other Scottish questions, appear completely to have been overlooked.
  I notice that we have more Ministers looking after Scottish affairs today than we have ever had before, yet the lifeline of that great little nation is being destroyed for the sake of vested interests. The people of Scotland have indeed been long suffering. They have known adversity and they expect a higher standard of government with each

  1143
  succeeding Parliament. To my mind that expectation is being covered by a mist to conceal the real intentions of the Government, which is to pander to big business.
  The intended action of the Government is having serious consideration throughout the country. I do not desire to burden the House further because there are many speakers on both sides who desire to enter this interesting debate and who, I am certain, can make a much greater contribution than I have attempted this afternoon. I only hope and trust that my efforts will at least be carried forward as an appeal to the Government, and I would ask the Ministers to give thought to whether this is the right thing to do. The Government have no mandate from the nation to do this. It is not too late to withdraw this apparently partisan Measure, because transport is a social and not a political necessity in Scotland. It is surely better that the Government should think again before committing a major mistake, for which they will be sorry.
  5.44 p.m.
  Major D. McCallum: It falls to my lot to have the privilege and pleasure of offering to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald) the congratulations of the whole House on his very valiant effort in making his maiden speech. I sympathise with him very much, because I remember that when I made my maiden speech it was also in a transport debate. I also remember that my nervousness in making that speech was very much more apparent than any nervousness on the part of the hon. Member. He was quite obviously very much an expert on this question of transport in Scotland, and I am sure that we shall look forward to many further contributions from him. If I may say so with respect, however, if his speech this afternoon was non-controversial we shall have some fireworks flying when he makes a controversial speech.
  I should like to deal with the point which the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) asked me to elaborate if I were fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair. Last year the right hon. Gentleman made a quite unwarranted charge against the Highland
  1144
  Members, saying that they were not acting in the interests of their constituents. It is a strange thing that after the Election each of the then Highland Members was returned again with an increased majority. I leave it to our constituents to judge the matter.
  I want to take up the right hon. Memon the question of British Road Services and private enterprise road services in the Highlands, particularly with regard to my own county of Argyllshire. The Campbeltown-Glasgow Coast Service was running a West coast motor service long before the steamers were taken off. Presumably it was running with efficient vehicles and at a profit at a time when the steamers were also running. Who took the steamers off? It was the Railway Executive.
  Mr. Rankin: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member is being quite fair to the House when he makes that statement. The steamers were taken off in September, 1949, by the Clyde and Campbeltown Steamer Service and by no other service.
  Major McCallum: I am not referring to them. I am referring to the steamers that have since been running under the Railway Executive and which have since been stopped except for passenger services running during the summer season for holiday makers.
  Mr. Rankin: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member again, but will he tell the House why the steamer service to Campbeltown was taken off, and also confirm that when the Railway Executive asked the town council of Campbeltown to give their opinion whether the service should be taken off or not no reply was received to their request.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are not in Committee now. This interruption is very unsatisfactory.
  Major McCallum: As regards the second part of the hon. Member's interjection, I do not know whether the town council replied to the Railway Executive, but they certainly wrote to their Member of Parliament and asked him to take the matter up. It is for that very reason that I know the subject.
  It is quite true that the steamer service was not paying. The farmers and

  1145
  the merchants preferred to send their goods by road. On the other hand, it is quite wrong to say that the private enterprise road services were not running efficiently or at a profit because they were, as also were Mitchells between Dunoon Strone and Glasgow; another firm from Lochgilphead to Glasgow; and from Oban to Glasgow.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: These road services are very largely MacBrayne's services, and MacBrayne's is subsidised to the tune of £500,000.
  Major McCallum: I assure the hon. Lady that none of the services I have mentioned have anything to do with MacBrayne's. I happen to know this subject rather well.
  Mr. Woodburn: Nobody is challenging the fact that where a service will pay private enterprise will run it. The point is that there are places in the Highlands where we could not make services pay and therefore, by private enterprise, one could not get a service because it would be at somebody else's expense.
  Major McCallum: I am very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that, because he will see, if he reads HANSARD tomorrow, that originally he said it was impossible to make road services pay by private enterprise in the Highlands. I disagreed with him, and the right hon. Gentleman charged me with not having in mind the interests of my constituents.
  Mr. Woodburn: I still think there are parts of the Highlands where it is quite impossible to make road services pay.
  Major McCallum: I agree that there are certain parts where that is so, but there are many parts where it is possible to make them pay.
  Mr. Woodburn: We know that.
  Major McCallum: The right hon. Gentleman said there were none at all. I wanted to put him right.
  A good deal has been said about the efficiency of British Road Services, and I had a case where a lorry of the British Road Services broke down about three-quarters of a mile from a private garage in Ardrishaig. The right hon. Gentleman knows where I mean. Most private enterprise firms would have gone to the garage and asked, "Can you help us to repair
  1146
  this?" British Road Services telephoned to Campbeltown for a lorry or tractor to tow the breakdown in. It was towed from Ardrishaig to Glasgow for repairs. That is not efficiency and economy, and in such circumstances how are the nationalised British Road Services ever going to pay?
  I am sorry to have been led astray, because transport is an important issue in the Highlands and we ought not to have charges and counter-charges of this sort about it. I have been very glad to hear all hon. Members complain of the very high freight charges which make it extremely difficult for people in the Highlands and Islands, and particularly the Islands, to survive. I plead with the Scottish Office and the Government to see whether there is some way by which the Islands, as distinct from the Highlands, can be regarded as a special area and given some special assistance in order to help the inhabitants.
  I am told that certain agricultural subsidies are provided which make it easier for the farmers and crofters of the Highlands and Islands to pay the increased costs of transport, but that deals only with farmers and crofters. What about the shopkeepers and the old people and other workers who have to pay the higher prices in the shops which result from the high freight charges? I ask for some consideration of this matter, and for special consideration for the Islands. I am sure that the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) will support me in this view, for his Islands are even more adversely affected than the Inner Hebrides.
  May I turn to the problem of the railways? We have had the ill-considered decision of the Scottish Regional Executive, which caused a great upheaval at the time of the proposed stopping of the Clyde steamers. There has also been some unfortunate decisions about certain sleeper services, more particularly between Oban and London. I am quite certain that some of those decisions would not have been made by the officials of the Executive, if they had had some local knowledge. Obviously they have not, and I was glad to hear the Joint Under-Secretary of State refer to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Scotland state that a new Committee was to be set up.

  1147
  Could my right hon. Friend tell us who appoints this Transport Users' Consultative Committee? Is it the British Transport Commission, the Railway Executive, or the Minister? On what ground are the members appointed—because of experience or because they are prominent men in public life? As far as I can see, no one in the present set up has the slightest idea of the transport problems in the Western Islands or the Highlands.
  I put to my right hon. Friend a very serious question about roads. This is not about trunk roads, on which a 100 per cent. grant is paid and which are the responsibility of the Minister of Transport, but about Class II and Class III roads and, in particular, unclassified roads. Throughout the Highland area these roads are getting into a shocking condition and, in particular with the local authorities in the crofting counties, insufficient money is obtained from the rates for the local authorities to afford the upkeep which is necessary. I know that there is an equalisation grant scheme; that grants can be made from the Road Fund; and that grants are made by the Ministry of Transport for second-class and third-class roads. But these are not sufficient to cover what the local authorities themselves are unable to provide, and I wonder whether the time has not come when we must think again about roads in the Highland areas.
  The right hon. Member for East Stirling made a very serious point about timber. In connection with my own local authority, I have been assured once or twice that a great deal can be done when timber traffic is finished. Of course, under the policy of the last Government and of this Government it will never finish; we are planting more and more areas in Scotland with the result that, as time goes on, there will be more and more timber to be carried. It cannot all be carried by water; some must be taken by road. These unclassified roads were never made to take traffic of that sort and they suffer severe damage from lorry traffic, either for the Forestry Commission or for private owners. The roads are bound to be knocked to pieces and from a long term point of view, they will have to be reconstructed.
  None of these local authorities is in a position to reconstruct them. I suggest
  1148
  that we must consider this problem very seriously and think out whether the Ministry of Transport ought not to take over all these roads from the local authorities, or whether some other means can be found of dealing with the problem. One of the greatest forms of development to which we look forward in the Highlands, after agriculture, is afforestation, and if we are to persuade people to plant trees and grow vast plantations, surely they must be able to look forward to means of road transport by which the timber can be carried away.
  Recently, considerable operations have been taking place on one of the main trunk roads out of Oban. A railway bridge which takes the road over the railway has a rather severe S bend, and for some unknown reason it was decided by the Ministry of Transport officials, under the late Government, to straighten out the road. Work has been carried on for several months, costing several thousand pounds, on a road which was perfectly good and where there has never been an accident, although admittedly driving over it required a little extra care. That money might well have been spent on roads of a lower classification.
  I know it will be said that such roads are nothing to do with the Ministry of Transport, but whether it be a trunk road. a Class II road or an unclassified road. the maintenance for which comes out of the rates or the Road Fund or taxation, in the end the public pay. It is just a matter of bookkeeping. We should see whether we cannot find some solution by which we can give greater assistance to those local authorities who cannot afford these vast reconstruction schemes which must be carried out.
  Finally, I want to say how very glad I am to hear in this debate at least more than one speaker bring up the subject of helicopters. I have for years pressed for the development of helicopters. I am perfectly convinced that the helicopter is the future form of transport for the Highlands, particularly the Islands. We know that there is a helicopter that has arrived at the South Bank today, and the Joint Under-Secretary of State has told us in his speech that the Departmental Committee had stated that it was unsafe for helicopters at present to fly over water. That seems a strange thing to

  1149
  say when there are two helicopters flying the Atlantic at this moment. Surely. if they can fly over the Atlantic they can fly across the Sound of Mull.
  I would plead for experiments to be carried out flying helicopters over the Highlands and Islands with a view to establishing helicopter services there. It is not a question of saving on airfields that already exist, because many Islands that have no airfield will not require one at all. Daily service for freight and passengers could be maintained and should be maintained to those Islands and in those remote areas which cannot be reached by any other means. We are experimenting today with flying helicopters into London, while every Londoner has a taxi or a bus or a train at his disposal. One can fly from Birmingham or some such place to London with the greatest of ease, and with alternative means of transport, but the people on Mull or Skye have not got a taxi or a train to take them to the mainland.
  I would plead with the Minister of Transport to do all he can to see that experiments are carried out on the West coast of Scotland between the mainland and the Islands with a view to linking them by means of helicopters. One of the leading instructor pilots of these machines, who has long been flying them and who is a Fort William man, has assured me time and again that he and his colleagues would be quite prepared to fly those machines over the water between the mainland and the Islands. I do beg both the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport to see if they can convince the Minister of Civil Aviation or B.E.A., with its helicopter unit, to carry out trials on the West coast of Scotland as well as in London.
  There are many points which can be raised on this question of transport for Scotland. It is a tremendously wide subject. One obviously cannot detain the House as long as would be required to raise all the points that I should like to raise, but I do say that, while this question of transport may be a serious one for the greater part of Scotland, it is an absolutely vital one for the Highlands, and as I sit down I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends to do their utmost to see if they can do more to develop the transport systems for the Highlands.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: Like the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum), I want to devote the main part of my speech to this crucial question of the high freight charges in the Highlands and Islands. I entirely agree with him that today that is the most urgent problem which Highland Members have to face. There are many other subjects that one could discuss in a debate such as this. For instance, one would like to touch upon the need for some inquiry as to why the trains between England and Scotland are nearly always late. One hopes that it is the fault of the English.
  I should have liked, too, to have said a word or two about civil aviation—a matter of importance to my constituency. In my view, its future depends very largely, so far as my Islands are concerned, on the production of the right type of aircraft and on the giving of as much power as possible to the local people on the spot. I find the local managers and others connected with aviation only too pleased to adapt and experiment with their services in a way which, I believe, in the long run would give us better schedules and which would, possibly, bring down fares. I should like to have drawn attention to the curious case which affects me and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), and that is the case of the bus service which it was proposed to run from his constituency to Glasgow.
  I certainly should like to have supported at some length what was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Argyll about roads. The Joint Under-Secretary of State said that Highland Members were not very easily satisfied about roads. I can assure him that any Highland Member who was satisfied about roads at present in the Highlands would have the greatest difficulty in holding his seat. If he wants direct evidence of that, let him come up during this summer with his bicycle—[Hors. MEMBERS:" In winter."]—and try to cross Yell and Whalsay. I can assure him and the Minister of Transport that the position today is that those by-roads—unclassified roads—to which the hon. Gentleman referred are getting worse, while tar plant and road workers are standing idle. If the hon. Gentleman will

  1151
  look at the position in the Shetlands, he will see that it is only an infinitesimal amount of new roads that are being made this year.
  I heard with some gloom his remarks about the flat freight rate scheme for fish. He said, I think, that it was now under "active consideration." This scheme was promised, I think, some six or seven months ago. It had been, presumably, under active consideration before that. If there are legal difficulties about it, I imagine that those legal difficulties were discussed at that time. Unless there are new difficulties about which we have not been told, I cannot understand why there should be this delay. As I heard the hon. Gentleman use that phrase "under active consideration" I wondered what he himself would have said if he had been sitting on the bench behind me, where he used to sit in the last Parliament, and had heard another Government, on one of his pet subjects, tell us that the matter was "still under active consideration." Those words in this country today have for me a sound of doom.
  To turn to what I want to make my main subject, the high cost of freight and transport in the Highlands and Islands. As I understand it, the Government's policy is to leave this matter to the new transport authority which is to be set up for Scotland. Now, in all seriousness, I think that is a wrong decision. To begin with, I do not believe that, from the transport point of view, it is right to put this new authority into the position of having to attend to a problem which is a social problem and a national problem and not purely a transport problem.
  I think that, from that point of view, they must try to start it off on the basis that it can make the Scottish region pay. That, I imagine, is really the Government's intention. If it is, it seems to me they must lift off its shoulders the clearly uneconomic routes. If the Highlands are to have reasonable freight charges and reasonable transport charges, it has to be by some means of subsidy, and, personally, I see no reason why that subsidy should be provided by other transport users. If this matter is left to the transport authority, it seems to me inevitable that, since it will have authority over transport only, if any such subsidy, direct or indirect, is provided, it will be
  1152
  paid at the expense of other transport users. I put that as a perfectly serious point of view, that neither will there be a possibility of this body getting on with the transport problem as such, nor shall we be meeting the national and social problems which we face in the Highlands.
  I would emphasise once again the problem that faces the Highlands. Though, goodness knows, Highland Members have raised it often enough, and, goodness knows, enough speeches have been made about it, I think that in this debate it is necessary just to run over it again today. In the remoter parts of the Highlands and in the Islands we are in a spiral of decline. The population is decreasing; as the population decreases, trade decreases; as trade decreases, freights rise; and as freights rise the population decreases still further.
  That is a process we have to reverse. I do not say that we shall re-populate the Highlands simply by producing a flat rate for freight or by producing more piers or better roads. I agree that high transport charges are not the only cause of de-population. To my mind we require a comprehensive policy which will cover agriculture, fishing, industry, housing, roads, land holdings, education and so on. But the absolute keystone of that policy must be a reduction in transport charges, and if the Joint Under-Secretary of State is in any doubt about that, I would draw his attention to his own words in the debate on the MacBrayne subsidy, on 12th May, when he said:
  "I do not need to emphasise how much we recognise that transport is almost the key to the prosperity of the Highlands."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1952; Vol. 500; c. 1073.]
  I think he is absolutely right. It would be entirely false to suppose that this spiral can be reversed, that de-population can be arrested or the area re-populated so long as that keystone remains out of the arch.
  I do not want to weary the House with figures of my own constituency, but they are extremely striking. Eggs per ton between Aberdeen and Kirkwall are 80s.; fish between Aberdeen and Lerwick, 85s.; hard fruit and groceries 60s. 10d. per ton to Kirkwall and 73s. 4d. to Lerwick; lobsters 97s. 6d. to Kirkwall and 110s. to Lerwick; agricultural machinery goes up for binders to 182s. to Lerwick.

  1153
  These are, I think the Minister will agree, staggering figures if a man hopes to have any profit at all out of an undertaking, or if he has to live, as most people in those areas have to live, on a very small income indeed. Taking things on to the North Isles of Orkney, one pays an additional 23s. 4d. for oats and an additional 53s. 4d. for lobsters; and for the North Isles of Shetland, places like the Skerries and Whalsey, 25s. for fish and 23s. 4d. for groceries.
  As I have said, so long as those conditions and those figures continue, it is useless to expect that the people will stay. There is simply not the margin left upon which they can live a decent life. The way to reverse that is not, I submit, to throw the onus on the transport authority, but to throw it on the Government as part of the social policy for these islands. For one thing, neither the present Commission, nor its successor will actually function on these matters, as far as my constituency is concerned; and for another thing, there is no reason why other transport users should bear the burden which we must undoubtedly face.
  But why should the country face this burden at all? Why should the great areas of the South support the North in any degree? The primary and overriding reason is that they want the food we produce. Another reason is that in peace and war, and particularly war, the men we produce are extremely valuable to this country as a whole.
  Then I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that today, throughout Britain, the economic system is full of stresses and strains caused by high taxation, subsidies, grants and restrictions, with the result that it is very difficult to tell what the economic position of the Highlands and Islands truly is. For instance, up there new houses are nearly as expensive in rent as new houses in London, but how much that is due to the Government's subsidy policy is difficult to find out.
  Mr. Percy Collick: If I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument aright, he is arguing for a transport subsidy in the Highlands of Scotland. I wonder if he could elaborate the idea a little and tell us exactly what the Liberal Party's proposal is in regard to subsidies for transport?
  Mr. Grimond: That is just what I am hoping to do. I had hoped that I had spent a little time in beginning to do it, and I trust I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman. The point I was making was that it is very difficult to tell what the situation is in any part of the country, and the Highlands and Islands, while they are helped in certain directions, have to put up with certain disadvantages from a centralised type of government in other directions. Again I quote the hon. Gentleman's own words, with which I entirely agree, in the debate to which I have already referred, when he said:
  "There are our social duties—and our national duties—to be performed, and it is in that way that we always look upon the matter."
  That was in regard to a subsidy to the Western Isles shipping.
  "As the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) said, the sea is the highway of the Western Isles, and the subsidy is justified for this particular service for this particular group of our citizens."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 1067.]
  I think, therefore, that the Government really accept this argument, that they should take some responsibility for a reasonably cheap service to the outlying parts of the country. I believe that if that help is given as part of a comprehensive policy, in time the situation may be reversed, with trade and population increasing, and we may in the long run be able to do away with that help.
  I do not want to be dogmatic as to how it must be given. To the Western Isles a straight subsidy is given. I myself feel that it might be better related to the costs of certain commodities, as I think it was in the war, whereby the Government pay the extra, or some part of the extra, on certain commodities due to freight. The Government will also have to consider very carefully the position of replacements to the shipping companies. The North of Scotland Company is admittedly making a profit of 15 per cent., but that is on a nominal capital of £100,000. I am told that the working capital of that company is upwards of £1½ million, so that the profit, instead of being 15 per cent., is something in the nature of 1 per cent.
  The Orkney Steam Navigation Company have two boats—good boats, but getting on in years—which would cost

  1155
  perhaps £300,000 to replace, but the company has not got a tenth of the reserves to enable it to do that. The other small operators are in much the same position; they would find it extremely difficult to replace their boats at costs today. I say to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) that I face up to the difficulty of help, and I should like to see this paid on the basis on which it was done during the war, with some contribution to the capital charges on transport by sea.
  The Government have given an assurance that the problems of the Highlands are not neglected, and they have asked us not to go about saying that they are neglected. I sympathise with that. I have never been one for going about crying "Woe! Woe!" about our difficulties. On the contrary, I think that we should emphasise that, at least in my constituency, as in many parts of the Highlands, there is a great deal of enterprise; there are a great many people willing to put their backs and energies into it to make a go of things, and I believe that by emphasising that we shall attract new people and new ideas.
  At the same time, the Government must be under no delusion. It is no good their looking only to towns like Inverness or Kirkwall. The fact of the matter is that the population in the outlying areas and the Outer Isles is steadily decreasing. The North Islands of Orkney are, by Highland standards, supposed to be a comparatively prosperous area, yet they had 5,600 people in 1931. and now have 4,285. There are only 56 per cent. of the schoolchildren in Orkney outside Kirkwall and Stromness that there were in 1922.
  I think that this Highland area has great possibilities for the good of the country as a whole, but to make the very most of it requires a comprehensive policy which will encourage local enterprise, which will draw together all the people who are willing to work for that area, and right at the very heart of that policy we must have cheaper transport.
  6.19 p.m.
  Sir David Robertson: I am sure the House has listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). As a brother Highland Member, I confirm that
  1156
  his outline of the problem of the Highlands is entirely correct, but I am afraid I cannot see eye to eye with him in regard to subsidies. I believe that all subsidies are wrong and evil, except maybe for the railway line from Perth to Thurso, which may for defence purposes require a subsidy. I believe that the Transport Commission or their successors are able, themselves, if they face up to the situation, to cure most of the problems.
  I particularly appreciate the hon. Gentleman's reference to the industry of the people he has the honour to represent. I think that is largely typical of the Highland people, but I am afraid that I cannot follow the point which he made about 15 per cent. on a capital of £100,000 when the actual capital was over £1 million. That extra capital of over £1 million must have come from profits; it must have been profits ploughed back. I rather suspect that the company to which he referred is in the nature of a private monopoly.
  Mr. Grimond: I am not briefed to defend this company. If I were, I should ask a very large fee. I pointed out that this company is admittedly in the position of a monopoly, but I do not think that is entirely its responsibility. It has had to put back a great deal of money in order to get up to date, and in future it is doubtful whether it can go on doing that.
  Sir D. Robertson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not briefed to attack the company. I think that his constituents, and my own, too, perhaps, are partly at fault for getting into the bands of this private shipping monopoly; but, on the other hand, we have the Transport Commission monopoly running the railways. Every time that rail rates go up, the shipping rates also go up. They keep at a level of about 10 per cent. below the railway rates. I think that is a point worthy of attention and it may be worthy of the attention of enterprising people still living at Lerwick, Kirkwall or Wick to start a competitive service.
  I cannot believe that private enterprise which built up the railways and all the other road transport organisations is dead. The right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), who opened this debate with his usual restraint, is, I

  1157
  am perfectly certain, anxious, as are all the other Members taking part in this debate, to do something of lasting benefit for Scotland, and I hope that we will rid ourselves of any doctrinaire ideas which we may have on this subject, which were manifest by hon. Members opposite when the Joint Under-Secretary was making his speech.
  May I remind the House that all the railways which were created and run by private enterprise up to 1947 were admittedly successful for a very long period of time? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They cannot live on their losses. I look back to my own early days when the railways were something which one could view with pride and admiration—not one railway but many railways in Scotland, which were operated efficiently and which had faster and cleaner trains and cheaper fares than they have today. Everyone in this House will remember the fleet of Clyde steamers operating all over the picturesque, lovely Clyde, carrying happy holiday-makers from all over the country to that very beautiful area, and this hideous monopoly decided to shut down some of them last year, but the common sense of the people and particularly of hon. Members on this side of the House stopped that act of vandalism.
  Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman has said that the railway companies were paying their way and doing very well prewar, but he knows perfectly well that the railwaymen were paid ridiculously low wages and the railway companies, in the main, were paying no interest on their ordinary share capital and were being subsidised through Government money.
  Sir D. Robertson: The railwaymen certainly had low wages but so had every other artisan, and money went a long way. Let me remind the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel) of that very fine teacher, the late Mr. James Crawford of Glasgow High School, whose father, a surfaceman in Ayrshire, never earned more than 28s. a week, but he brought up a family of 10 children who were well-fed, well-educated and well-clothed, and he did not whine about it. My own grandfather, who was a teacher, never got more than £1 a week, but he lived reasonably well. We are proud of all these people. It will not do to raise that kind of bogey because, even if it
  1158
  were true, conditions have greatly improved. The great trade unions have done their duty.
  The point that I wanted to make, when I was interrupted, was that this great community service which grew up and which we inherited when the Act came into being founded a network of railways which were probably the best in the world. There was nothing which I have seen on the Continent or overseas to compare with them. In the four years that have elapsed—and I say this because hon. Members opposite have been talking about losses—this monopoly has resulted in a loss of £39,500,000 and most of that period has been a trade boom period. such as this world had never before known, of high wages, full employment and holidays with pay—a period which is not likely to come back in the lifetime of young men here.
  Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the loss on the railways the year before nationalisation? He will find that they lost £60 million in one year.
  Sir D. Robertson: I am studying the Report which is the main subject of today's debate. The figure in the Report is £39½ million during the period when the Transport Commission have been in charge. They achieved that after raising their rates on freights and fares to an average of 112 per cent. over pre-war.
  Mr. Manuel: Look at page 27.
  Sir D. Robertson: I made particular note that the words of the Commission are these:
  "Similarly the increases made in freight charges on 31st December, 1951, and in certain passenger fares early in 1952 raised the average increase in charges on British Railways (shown in the diagram as 93 per cent.) to 112 per cent. over pre-war."
  That is the figure of which I spoke. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the final paragraph on page 26. The submission which I should like to make is that the Commission are artificially pricing themselves out of the transport market. If evidence of that is required, it is given on page 23 of the Report which states:
  "The growing significance, in the total, of the non-ordinary or ' concession ' fare categories, is a matter of some importance. Diagram No. 6 shows how the proportion of these forms of service has been steadily rising since 1948 on British Railways, whereas the traffic paying at ordinary fares is falling off.

  1159
  The result has been an actual decrease in the average fare per mile charged on British Railways …"
  The previous Reports were in a very different form. The form of this Report, obviously for propaganda purposes, is against de-nationalisation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes—and is entirely different from the others. In a transport debate a year or two ago I gave figures showing that day fares, week-end fares and period excursion fares were up by millions and that ordinary fares and monthly return fares were down by millions. It is not true to express it as a trend which has occurred in the last year; it has been going on all the time because the railways have priced themselves out of business.
  Mr. Wheatley: The hon. Gentleman has made a very serious accusation in suggesting that the facts and figures in the Report have been so fashioned as to give an entirely misleading effect; in other words, that they are "cooked" figures and that they were so represented, or misrepresented, for propaganda purposes. Will the hon. Gentleman state categorically whether he is accusing the Transport Commission of misrepresenting the figures? If they were misrepresented for propaganda purposes, for whom was the propaganda?
  Sir D. Robertson: I am not accusing British Railways of having committed any crime. I am simply saying that they have altered the nature of the Report and that the previous Reports were entirely different from this one. I have suggested—I stand by it; it is not an accusation—that the Report has been influenced by the Commission, which wants to retain its job, and that is a perfectly natural thing to do. I do not appreciate the synthetic indignation of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  I am making a very important point, because it is fundamental to the wellbeing of our country that we should have an efficient and prosperous railway service. I am convinced that while it is in the hands of the people who are now running it, most appalling harm is being done to British industry and to the British people, particularly to people who cannot afford to travel unless the fare is reasonable. If any hon. Member doubts this, let him turn to page 26 where he
  1160
  will see that when ld. a mile is charged the numbers travelling rise and when the 2.44d. full fare is charged the numbers go down.
  Why has the number of C licence holders increased by hundreds of thousands? The only reason is that that is a cheaper and more efficient service. I am in industry in the Highlands and I know something of the problem. We cannot afford to send our goods by rail. It will interest hon. Members from the mining areas to know that the rate for moving coal from Sutherland to Aberdeen is 33s. per ton. Before the war one could obtain best South Yorkshire hards at 16s. per ton delivered. None but a doctrinaire person can suggest that a Tate of 33s. a ton for coal from Sutherland to Aberdeen will ever sustain a trade; it stops trade stone dead. As an hon. Member said in a recent debate, produce does not move because of the penal rates.
  I feel certain that the purpose at the back of the Government's intentions to get rid of the monopoly is to give industry and the people the best possible service. The policy of continuing with a sheltered trade in which freights are raised when prices rise is no answer to our problem. The law of diminishing returns is now operating. If there is one industry in Great Britain which depends on turnover it is the railways, but they are running two trains where they should run four trains, and they are running half-empty trains because people cannot afford to travel. The diminishing return except on cheap and attractive fares can be seen in the Commission's own records.
  I have another example to give. I must declare an interest here in that I am concerned in a woollen business in Wick. I had a letter this morning from the manager which said that it costs £21 12s. 3d. a ton to send woollens by goods train from Wick to Southampton. A five-ton lorry with one man could do the job, and if the total cost were anything under £100 there would be a profit, and it would cost a great deal less than £100. It is no wonder that people are rushing in for C licences to carry their own goods, even though the vehicles return empty. That is the answer to the problem of high fares and high freights.
  The railway ought to be in the hands of people of the type who built them up

  1161
  —people who overcame public prejudice and tremendous opposition in the early days and overcame the canal boats and coastal shipping—when a large number of railway companies competed with one another but survived and rendered great service in the Nineteenth Century. The blame does not rest entirely on the Commission. The successors to the men who built up the railway companies have run away from the internal combustion engine instead of fighting it ever since it appeared. The Government must persuade the Railway Executive to follow a policy of abundance and look for turnover returns by making it attractive to travel. Do hon. Members think that people sit for 12 hours in a coach from Glasgow or Edinburgh to London instead of travelling by a train which takes eight hours because they prefer to do that? The only reason they do it is that it is cheaper.
  There is a great opportunity for the railways if virile managers will say, "We will accept the challenge. We will not be a sheltered industry waiting on what Parliament says. We will compete and will give a good service and run more trains and more full trains. It was done in the old days and it can be done again." The railways stand a tremendous chance of succeeding because the roads have become very largely overcrowded. I am shortly going by car to Caithness and Sutherland. In the bad old days of which hon. Members opposite talk, it used to cost £15 return to transport a car on the train from London to Inverness, to travel comfortably with my family, getting there the following morning. Now it costs £80 to £100 and I cannot afford to go by train, so I drive up. I would rather do anything than drive my car between London and Carlisle, because it has become a road railway.
  I have lived over 40 years in London, and I have always travelled North by night train. Recently when I could not get a sleeper for my wife I was obliged to go by day train. It was a delight to sit in the "Royal Scot" as it drove through the beautiful country. There was a cup of coffee in the morning, lunch and afternoon tea and by the time we had read a little and played Canasta we were in Glasgow. The people will go for that sort of thing in a big way. People have now reached the stage when they no longer enjoy long-distance motoring. I
  1162
  know that I do not. I appeal to hon. Members opposite, who have doctrinaire views—
  Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member is getting old.
  Sir D. Robertson: I am not getting old. The policy which I am enunciating will, I am convinced, give the public value for their money, which is always an irresistible attraction. I am certain that the principle applies to traffic on road and rail as it does to anything else. I know that hon. Members opposite love our country and are as much devoted to it as I am, but I would remind them that all the great public services that have succeeded in the past have been built up on the same basis, from the penny post onwards.
  Mr. Grimond: I have a great deal of sympathy for some of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He has admitted that some help is needed for the railway from Perth to Wick and he also would no doubt require a subsidy for the spur lines such as that to the Kyle of Lochalsh. Would he agree that, not transport users but the public at large should give the help?
  Sir D. Robertson: The hon. Member has raised a very interesting point, and I think the answer is that it is the duty of a monopoly to give a universal service to as many people as possible. As far as I know, the Transport Commission have created nothing new in the way of railways. They have shut down railway lines, but I do not grumble at that because they were unprofitable. Nevertheless, I feel there is an obligation on the Transport Commission, as rested on the old railway companies, to maintain services and they must take the stones as well as the plums.
  We know that the London to Manchester, London to Liverpool, London to Glasgow, London to Edinburgh, London to Hull and the traffic with all the big cities are the plums. They yield very big dividends, and the policy of this Commission seems to be to shut down everything that does not pay. Let us consider the restaurant cars. They should never be judged on their own. Does the porter who carries one's bag earn a profit or dividend for the railway? He is a necessity the same as shelter is at a station.

  1163
  This policy is entirely wrong and it has got to end. I hope it will come to an end in the near future. I think that deals with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). It will not just do to say they are going to keep the plums and not some of the services which are not wholly remunerative. I will concede the point that I regard the main line from Perth to Wick as of great strategic importance, for it has proved that it is in two world wars.
  I apologise for taking up so much of the time of the House, but I feel that if hon. Members on all sides were to give thought to a policy of abundance instead of a policy of scarcity, which is now carried out by the Commission, it would be to the general advantage of Scottish transport, and of the people they are privileged to serve.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). He is always very vigorous and he holds tremendous opinions. Frankly, I do not know whether he was advocating a policy of abundance or a policy of abandonment, because the logic of his speech was to throw out entirely the whole of the Transport Act, 1931, and all other Acts, and have a free-for-all.
  Sir D. Robertson: I said nothing of the kind.
  Mr. Steele: I was saying that that is the logic—
  Sir D. Robertson: The hon. Member can think what he likes.
  Mr. Steele: —of what the hon. Gentleman was advocating. He went on to talk about ordinary fares, weekend fares and other concession fares, and out of that he derived arguments about the increase of C licences. That seemed to me to prove that he did not know what he was talking about, because these concession fares are all for passengers and have nothing to do with freight services at all.
  Sir D. Robertson: I was referring to C licences for freights. I dealt with the Commission's Report in regard to fares and I dealt with the C licences, following
  1164
  which I gave a concrete example of the case I was making. If the hon. Gentleman does not see through that, he will not see through anything.
  Mr. Steele: It is difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman at any time and he obviously got the argument so mixed with road haulage that I was not able to follow it at all.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about the loss sustained by the Transport Commission. The Commission's accounts are compiled differently from those of many other firms. Most firms have got to show their accounts and then the profits are distributed, but the Transport Commission have got to allow for sums paid for redemption of stock and money paid in interest, and it is that which represents the actual loss. On the subject of competition, I joined the old Caledonian Railway in 1919. I can tell the hon. Member that between the old Caledonian, the South Western and the N.B. competition had gone long before I joined the company.
  I was interested in the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) and I wanted to reply to them, but as he has left the House I will not do so now, except to this extent, that when the Minister of Transport recently made statements in the House about inefficiency of road haulage he was unable to give any evidence. The hon. and gallant Member for Argyll seems to have come to his rescue, but the extent of the inefficiency in road haulage seems to boil down to the fact that at one time one vehicle of B.R.S. broke down at a place called Ardrisaigh.
  I want to deal with what was said by the Joint Under-Secretary of State, and particularly his reference to the reorganisation of the railways. Under the new Transport Bill, which was published recently, a new and definite obligation has been placed upon the Secretary of State for Scotland, the equal of which has not been placed on any Secretary of State before. Clause 16 (5) lays down that, before the Minister of Transport exercises his powers under the Clause in anything affecting Scotland, he shall consult the Secretary of State for Scotland. Therefore, it is clear that the Secretary of State must be consulted about whatever reorganisation takes place.
  I should like the Secretary of State and his officials, especially all those who will

  1165
  be advising them, to read the speeches of the Scottish Members of Parliament during the debates of 1921 when the railway group Act of that time was put through the House. The then right hon. Member for Peebles, Sir Donald Maclean said:
  The attempt that is being made to separate the Scottish railways from the English railways is arbitrary and unnatural."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1921; Vol. 142, c. 381.]
  Another hon. Member said that the Minister of Transport would be trying to force upon Scotland a system which they knew was unwise from a railway point of view and it would be most detrimental to the whole of industrial Scotland. Another hon. Member said in a supplementary reply that if the then proposals were carried through about giving Scotland a transport system of its own, it would be the ruin of Scottish trade. What is being proposed today?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it has been ruled already that we are on a Supply Day and that we cannot discuss legislation?
  Mr. Wheatley: Further to that point of order. The position is that my hon. Friend is not dealing with the contents of a Bill. The Joint Under-Secretary of State made an important statement on the functions of the authority which is to be set up. That important statement having been made, it would be unfortunate if other hon. Members were not entitled to speak on it.
  Mr. Speaker: In reply to that point of order, it is quite clear that it would be out of order for the House now to discuss the details of a forthcoming Bill, because that would be anticipating our discussion and would be involving matters of legislation which are out of order on a Supply Day. However, I have been listening with care to the hon. Member who was speaking and I did not think he had got out of order. If hon. Members will confine themselves to the general discussion, without seeking to discuss future legislation, we might have a useful debate.
  Mr. Steele: Further to that point, Mr. Speaker, the area committee is not in a Bill but is something which can be done outside legislation and the Joint Under-
  1166
  Secretary made a special announcement with which I wish to deal. He suggested that the area authority is for the whole of Scotland. We cross-examined him at the time as to what would be its functions and powers. Clearly such a committee or authority can have no power over the wages and conditions of those working in the service. We all know that there are separate authorities for the farm workers, and the result is that the farm workers in Scotland generally get an increase six months later than the English, and on this occasion they have not got an increase at all.
  Such an authority can have no power over rates and fares. That was specifically stated in the White Paper which the Government published about it. It can have no power over capital expenditure because at present the Minister of Transport, like every other Minister, will have given to him his quota regarding capital expenditure. So the committee can have no power over that, and the White Paper says that it will not have any authority for financial purposes. If it is to have no power in these important matters, what power will it possess? I cannot see that it will have any more power than the present regional officer for Scotland. It looks to me as if it will be a glorified advisory committee which will be paid a salary to keep quiet.
  Had it been an authority for the integration of the various services of Scotland, I should have been prepared to support it. In his peroration the Minister referred to a comprehensive service, to looking at it as a whole, to the integration of the services. He must remember that by the time the committee is set up there will be little left of the road haulage or passenger service to be integrated. As I have said, had it been a committee for integration, I should have agreed to it, but the policy of the Government is one of disintegration.
  Following on from what the hon. Gentleman said, there is this interesting paragraph in the White Paper:
  "The existence of these separate areas should encourage a healthy rivalry between them, and give greater scope for initiative than is possible under a single centralised administration."
  I am concerned about that. Has the Secretary of State for Scotland or his advisers given any thought to what will

  1167
  be the yardstick for that rivalry between different areas? Firstly, the British Transport Commission will have the road haulage service taken from it; secondly, it will lose the road passenger service. Therefore, both those sections of the industry will cease to be public services in the truest sense of the word.
  It has become clear as this debate has proceeded that we must have services in the Highlands. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald) showed how many of those services were uneconomic. If those services are taken away from the British Transport Commission there will not be enough left of that £4 million even to satisfy Scotland.
  What is to be the approach of the various railway officers once there is rivalry between the separate areas? Is it not clear that, in order to keep the working costs as low as possible they will try to make the railway organisation pay its way? We all know, for instance, that the Clyde steamer services do not pay. We know about the agitation last year.
  But if the railway officers and this committee in Scotland have to be compared with the other areas of the country, they will set out with the purpose of cutting out the dead wood, that is, the uneconomic services, because if we take away from the British Transport Commission the road passenger services and the road haulage services, they cannot be asked to take on the responsibility of providing uneconomic services. The value of having one integrated service is that the responsibility rests upon the shoulders—[Interruption.] It does not matter about the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, in any case. He has now made his speech, and that is all he is interested in.
  Sir D. Robertson: I ought to apologise to the hon. Member for speaking, but it so happens that I have to leave in a very few minutes. I was conveying to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary the news that I was going away but would come back at 9 o'clock to hear what he has to say. I wanted to apologise to hon. Members for not being here. That was the sole reason for my speaking, but I appreciate that the rebuke was justified.
  Mr. Steele: I accept the apology, and congratulate the hon. Member on his promotion to the Front Bench.
  In having an integrated service, a definite responsibility can be placed upon the group to ensure that a good service is carried out. We shall all look upon the area authority with suspicion, since it will not have the job of integration that we think it ought to have.
  We always have special pleadings from the Highlands in these transport matters, which is understandable. I was glad to hear the point of view of the Liberal Party—they think that a subsidy ought to be given. Those who were asked to report on Highland transport costs gave their recommendations on page 13 of the Report of the Cameron Committee. The Joint Under-Secretary has read some of the recommendations, but he did not read them all. Let me read another, which says:
  "They also recommend that particular attention should be paid to the co-ordination of road, rail and sea services.…"
  Mr. Woodburn: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Steele: That co-ordination can only be effective with a properly integrated service under the British Transport Commission.
  All of us want to see in Scotland a transport service that is safe, efficient and economic. I want a transport system which, as well as delivering the goods, gives good working conditions and a decent standard of life to its employees. This is not a job for politicians, but for the experts and for those who have been brought up in the business. It is our job as a House of Commons to pass legislation in such a way as to enable these people to carry on that good task.
  Our railways have an excellent record of safety, and so have our passenger road services. This is due, I think, to the passage of the 1931 Act. Before it, there was cut-throat competition, with buses racing each other for the bus stops to obtain fares; there was danger to everyone on the roads. We all know that the Road Haulage Executive, under the British Transport Commission, have improved the standard of vehicles and keep within the law regarding working hours; and they have given a more efficient service to the public.

  1169
  That is quite irrespective of what the Minister of Transport and his Parliamentary Secretary say. The speech, incidentally, of the Parliamentary Secretary, in winding up the recent debate on the Transport Commission, was an affront to the House. For him to make the kind of speech that he did at the Box was a disgrace, and to tell smokeroom stories and, even worse, a story that he had already told at the Box on another occasion, was clearly out of place.
  No one will deny that despite the great handicaps of the general economic situation, the Transport Commission have improved efficiency and have achieved economies. Many tributes have been paid to railwaymen for the way they carried out their duties during the war, but very few people understand how serious was the position because of the lack of modernisation and capital expenditure in the inter-war years.
  I remember our operating problems in the early part of the war, with freight services from Lanarkshire not arriving at Carlisle within 24 hours simply because of the bad conditions and cumbersome methods of the shunting yards, and similar reasons. There was a waste of man hours and engine hours simply because in the inter-war years the necessary modernisation was not carried out.
  There has been greater efficiency in Scotland since the Transport Commission came into operation. We have had the integration of the L. & N.E. and the L.M. & S. This has enabled better routeing of traffic and the common use of staff. There have been great staffing economies not only at headquarters but in the districts and stations.
  That has not been an easy task. Anyone with any knowledge of the problem of effecting staff economies, staff negotiations, and the problem of moving men about and the consequent housing and other difficulties, will agree that it speaks a great deal indeed both for the Corn-mission and for the trade union officials in Scotland that we have been able to achieve what has been done. I believe that we have done more in Scotland towards the integration of railway services than in any other part of Britain.
  One of the great things to which those for whom I speak looked forward—that is, the clerical and supervisory staff of British Railways—was some help in
  1170
  amenities and working conditions. The general public can see and criticise stations like Queen Street and many other places, but I should like to be able to take them behind the scenes and show them the conditions under which railway clerks, supervisors and others have to work, not only at headquarters but in district offices, goods stations and other depots.
  I had to spend eight hours a day in a railway booking office situated under a viaduct. I lived in a continual dust storm from the time I went in in the morning until I came out, because of the passage of trains overhead. One simply could not eat a meal in the place. Every time anyone picked up a book, the dust had to be blown off it. These conditions still remain. The buildings are old. They were built when staff were very cheaply obtained. Staffing today is a grave problem, and I can understand why many young people are not prepared to come into the railways. There is at present a greater turnover in salaried railway staff than ever before.
  The main burden is falling on a body of older men who, because of their loyalty and devotion, are performing wonders. These men are conscious that the Railway Executive are doing everything they can to make improvements. They know that their efforts are limited by sources outside their control. But these men are angry with the Government's proposals. They are bitter with the memories of the struggle of the interwar years.
  Those are the men who helped the railway companies for their "Square deal" campaign. They suffered salary cuts, they lost promotion prospects because of the ruthless economies of the inter-war years, yet they have remained good and loyal railwaymen and they have worked well in an industry in which they have spent so much of their lives. They have been public servants in the truest sense of the word. They know that only by an integrated service can the best service be given.
  Even now their wages and conditions are not comparable with those of other public servants. But the improvements in salaries and wages for which they have been working quite clearly are in jeopardy if the present proposals of the Government are carried through. They

  1171
  know, as I know, what happened in the inter-war years when the railway companies were fighting a competitive battle, and to get traffic under those conditions is absolutely impossible. The Secretary of State for Scotland has great authority in the Cabinet. I am convinced that he more than anyone will be able to bring some pressure to bear in this matter.
  I do not want to make any political capital out of this at all. I am much more concerned with the welfare, the comfort and the future of these men and women with whom I worked side by side for 25 years. I do not want to see these men have the fears which we had at that time. I do not want to see them worried about short time and worried by all the things we had to go through. But I am convinced that that will happen if the proposals of the Government go through.
  I appeal to the Secretary of State to give this matter all the consideration he can and to convince his colleagues that the railwaymen, in particular, are up in arms against these proposals. They will do all in their power to defeat them when they come forward, because they desire a good service.
  7.12 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: The debate is following two courses, the course, quite naturally, of individuals raising matters of great importance to their constituencies or even to the regions they represent, and the wider general question such as has been touched upon by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele). I wish to follow the line he has given the House, because we all recognise that he is a man with great knowledge of these matters.
  The hon. Member has the great practical advantage of having worked on the railways for many years, and he speaks in this House with authority. The fear he expressed in his closing sentences is a fear which each of us in this House would wish to disperse and to dispel, namely, the fear that those engaged in the great railway industry should feel that in some way or other their position may be threatened by the future course of events. It is the interest of all of us to see that that should not be so.
  1172
  We agree that the railways are the backbone of the haulage industry of this country. If the railways were in danger, still more if the railways stopped, we all know what immediately would happen to the country. What we on this side of the House feel is that in the name of integration to some extent the doctrine of asphyxiation is being preached—of putting the transport system of the country into an airtight chamber in which it will be unable to survive and develop. In that way we wish to discuss this Vote as well as the immediate problems which are of such great interest to individual hon. Members.
  The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire. West, by coincidence, also represented a constituency which I previously had the honour to represent and which was subsequently represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland), who I notice is also taking a great interest in this debate. It is a constituency in which rail transport is very important indeed. It is an area which he and I know very well.
  The area of Lanark is exactly one of those areas where new developing forms of transport alter the flow of one kind of traffic which we know very well—the livestock traffic of Scotland. It was true that the railways were not the most satisfactory method of carrying livestock and the door-to-door haulage by the internal combustion engine provided an entirely different service. We feel that if such a matter were left to an airtight monopoly it would tend to be stifled at birth. It was to the disadvantage of the existing traffic system—
  Mr. Steele: In any case, that particular traffic was not taken over by the British Transport Commission and is outside the Commission.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I really do know that. I was only using it as an example of a developing traffic, because it comes closely home to both of us and we have both seen it at Lanark when it was carried by rail. Now it is almost always carried by road. I do not suggest that it is being taken over, but I suggest that the danger of integration is a real danger and there is a danger that monopoly may be too efficient. We fear that an integrated system trying to control all the air services of Scotland, all the road services of Scotland, all the railway services, all

  1173
  the canals and everything may be beyond the power of man to manage. I think that a certain degree of easing up instead of further concentration is very necessary.
  The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West doubted whether the suggested area committee would be of use. I think he pushed his argument too far. I believe that if there had been an efficient area committee, still more an efficient board with powers, the muddle about the Clyde steamers would not have taken place. I believe that it would have done great good in bringing these matters in good time to the notice of the railway officer directing that area.
  At present the danger of the growth of the C licences is that all up and down the country there is a wasteful use of transport which is the lifeblood of our country. For instance, there is a great surplus of bricks on the East side of England, to use an example from England. There is also a great surplus of empty transport which could carry those bricks from the East side of the country to the West; but, because it is C transport, those bricks which are piling up cannot be carried to places where they are wanted to build houses. I do not call that integration, but disintegration. If it were possible to loosen up on all this I am sure that we would have a more efficient system of transport.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) pointed out in his most interesting speech, transport is not a fixed quantity, which can only be divided amongst a certain amount of vehicles. Transport grows as the power of carrying it grows. It is not to the advantage of anyone that bricks should stand in heaps on one side of England while transport is running backwards and forwards across England half the time empty because of red tape—
  Mr. Rankin Mr. Rankin rose—
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I have every sympathy with the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), but we cannot continue this discussion if he makes half of everyone's speech. The hon. Member will excuse me for not giving way because I wish to be as brief as possible as many other hon. Members wish to speak; but the most interesting speech of the hon.
  1174
  Member for Dunbartonshire, West should not be allowed to go without comment from this side of the House. I am with that hon. Member on the point that we cannot entirely divorce Scottish railways from English railways.
  He quoted one or two speeches made in 1921. If he had carried his researches further, he would have found speeches of my own on the subject and in the same vein. I do not think we should divorce Scottish railways entirely from the great systems in the south. That cannot be done in finance, and I am sure that it cannot be done in wages and conditions. We are seeing one of the difficulties in the matter of agricultural wages, where an agricultural wage struck south of the Border is different from that struck north of the Border where we look with apprehension on the repercussion of these two things on each other. The two will need to work with each other.
  A great deal more devolution, however, could be given to Scotland. I believe that a great deal more local attention can be given to the needs of the local people. I am sure that unless we allow a certain amount of latitude in the various systems—air, road, and rail—we shall not get that efficient system of transport for the good of the people of Scotland that we desire. The purpose, after all, is to provide transport. The customer is the man it is all about.
  We have some examples of private rates, even today, as against those of British Road Services. Take certain examples; smalls, for example, for a journey of 20 miles. The 1952 rate of the private haulier is 9d. and that of B.R.S. is ls. 10d. For cased goods the 1952 rate of private hauliers is ls. and that of the B.R.S. 2s. 1d. For bagged goods the respective rates are 9s. as against 17s. 6d. Those are for journeys of 20 miles. The rates for journeys of 27 miles show the same disproportion—smalls 6d. as against Is. 10d.; cased goods ls. as against 3s. 2d.; and bagged goods 9s. as against 19s. 4d.
  Mr. Steele: Who is the private haulier?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: These are private hauliers who are carrying these goods.
  Mr. Steele Mr. Steele rose—
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sorry not to give way, but I am under the strongest compulsion to be as brief as I can. I am giving examples which may not be of universal application, but they are examples which any of us can repeat a dozen times from our experience.
  I am not going into the many complaints of delays and of things being lost, bad packaging and—
  Mr. Steele Mr. Steele rose—
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: One of my besetting sins is that of entering into conversations with my hon. Friends or even with my hon. adversaries across the Floor of the House. I am doing my best to break myself of that bad habit, and I beg the hon. Member not to lead me astray.
  I have specially avoided quoting complaints because they lead to angry talk and the giving of actual occasions and examples of goods lost, and gone astray, and of cases of petty discourtesy of one kind or another, which we all have brought to our notice by consignors. I am giving actual quotations from actual haulage rates because they cannot be quarrelled with.
  The danger before us today is that of trying to over-organise. That is a greater danger than the danger of allowing a little play. Kipling wrote a story called "The Ship that found Herself." It concerned a ship on her maiden voyage across the Atlantic, when each of the parts was working with difficulty against each of the other parts. As the ship was suffering from stress of weather each of them achieved a little give, which was theoretically quite wrong, but which made the ship a supple and live thing instead of a piece of dead steel pushing its way through the ocean. Thus the ship found herself and became a ship. That is what we want to see in the transport system of this country, and what we are all struggling towards in this debate.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: We always listen with great interest to the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). I hope he will forgive me, however, if I do not follow him too closely in the remarks he has addressed to us. From what he has said, it is clear that he has been trying to justify the transport policy
  1176
  of his Government, especially in relation to Scotland.
  He seemed to be rather contradicting the remarks of the Joint Under-Secretary, who created the impression that Scotland was to have a new deal so far as transport authority was concerned, and that all matters relating to transport would be settled in Scotland by Scots. I think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has exploded that myth which was created by the Under-Secretary. He has shown quite clearly, as, in fact, the Transport Bill does, that there will be no separation of finance, and I am certain that fare and charge fixing by the central authority will still proceed.
  It is appropriate that we should have this debate on Scottish transport. We have problems which are essentially Scottish ones, related to our isolated Highland and Island communities. A problem which applies more to Scotland than to any other parts of the country is that of long stretches of uneconomic railway lines. I imagine that the whole of the lines to the Highlands are quite uneconomic, and I am always amazed when I hear Tory Highland Members arguing for lower freight charges at the same time as they are advocating other principles in relation to road transport that would cause even greater losses and higher freight charges on the uneconomic lines. I cannot understand their logic in that respect.
  While it is the fact that Scotland has these problems, I do not agree that Scottish transport should be examined in isolation. My examination of it has been tied to the British Transport Commission's Report, which is the only true guide to what we should be trying to deal with tonight. After reading the Report, and hearing the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I think it is clear that our transport system from Land's End to John o'Groats should be operated to meet the needs of the people.
  Where the whole Tory case breaks down is, I feel, that transport does not run so far as they are concerned unless a profit is made from its running. They are continually in the difficulty of trying to justify a transport system run on that principle, and, of course, when they come up against the problems found in Scotland, where there are such large uneconomic transport areas, they have no case and no argument to offer.

  1177
  Because they believe in a private enterprise profit-making transport system they have now written off the railways. They do not claim that the railways should now go back under private ownership. That is why hon. Members opposite oppose integration. They do oppose it and are arguing against dovetailing of all forms of transport. We on this side of the House argue for the dovetailing of all forms of transport in order to get the best and most economic whole. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite recognise that proper integration would cut out or lop off unnecessary useless forms of transport and empty running of vehicles, and accordingly destroy the private sector. They wish to keep alive the private sector and, if possible, destroy the publicly-owned sector of transport.
  I believe that each form of transport should be used and built to conform to the general overall pattern of a transport system to serve the nation. The case which hon. Gentlemen opposite make against the physical integration of transport is, in my opinion, quite unrealistic. Far instance, they would allow far more lorries on the road than would be necessary, and it appears to me that so long as they can advocate that sort of thing, principles that can weaken or destroy a publicly-owned service, they feel they are doing the political job which they ought to do. Of course, they would not allow that kind of duplication in their own private enterprise concerns.
  I know they say that we should allow the public to choose the form of transport they want to use in the belief that the unwanted, uneconomic portions of transport would be lopped off and collapse. But there is nothing new or original in that approach. We have always understood that the free play of unrivalled competition decided these questions by the creation of bankrupts. It is interesting to recall that the greatest number of bankruptcies we have had occurred when the party opposite were at their strongest in pre-war years. In the period from 1935 onwards, when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power—
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: But it was the bankrupts who suffered, not the State.
  Mr. Manuel: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr is an authority on what happens when a
  1178
  bankruptcy occurs. But I do know that very often when a business went bankrupt it caused a great deal of suffering to those employed in them and to others in the households of the people owning or partly owning the business. In 1935 there were over 7,000 bankruptcies. In 1938 there were over 4,000, and from 1946 to 1950 there was an average of a little over 1,000 a year. While we are talking of transport, it is also interesting to note that from 1936 to 1938, 219 garage proprietors went bankrupt, and in the period between 1946 and 1950 there were only 70; so that it would appear there has been an improvement at any rate in that sector of transport.
  The Transport Commission have done a good job. They had to deal with a railway system which was worn out. I do not think any hon. Member opposite would be prepared to say that at the end of the war, when we had the Transport Act of 1947, the railways which were taken over were equipped in any way at all to meet the transport needs of the country. As a railway man on the locomotive side, I know that we were working engines which were very often quite unsuitable for the jobs for which they were being used. The railways are still suffering to a great extent from the lack of capital development. There was fierce road competition, which ought to have been met and dealt with long ago, and would have been, had we had a Government interested in our railway system and in keeping it in trim to meet the needs of the nation.
  To integrate road and rail the Commission, through the Road Haulage Executive, have taken over 3,760 undertakings. I am certain that no business man on the benches opposite would fail to agree that in taking over those 3,760 road haulage concerns the Commission had a very big task to perform. It is only now that they are entering into real integration, and I feel they ought to be complimented on the work they have done.
  In paragraph 2 of his letter prefacing the Report, the Chairman, Lord Hurcomb, states:
  "The 1951 programme of acquisition of long distance haulage undertakings, in accordance with the terms of the Transport Act, 1947, was virtually completed, and the way was prepared for many important steps in the process of integrating the different forms of transport, from which large economies would eventually result."

  1179
  The Government have shown clearly that they are not going to allow these economies to result. All this work is to be undone, despite the huge sums which have been spent for the goodwill of these Road Haulage concerns taken over. These vehicles are to be got rid of at any price, at throw away value, and the great sell-out is about to happen.
  I understand—and I would like it contradicted if I am incorrect; there have been various estimates given—that it is anticipated by the Tory Party and by the Government that a huge sum will be lost in the sell-off of these vehicles. In fact, amounts of anything from £20 million to £30 million have been mentioned. I would like to hear what sum the Government think the nation will have to provide in the sell-off of these road haulage vehicles.
  In my opinion, the Road Haulage Executive have done a good job in Scotland and now they also are to be scrapped. What is to happen in that area? This has particular reference to Scottish Members on the Government Front Bench. What is to happen in the areas which previously private operators did not serve? Many of them are remote rural Highland areas who are now having a more regular passenger and freight service than ever before, and where it is quite uneconomic to run a regular service. We must have an answer about what is to happen in those areas.
  The Minister said last week that he is also scrapping the road passenger side and the Road Passenger Executive. If that is so we want to know much more about it than we have been told so far. If there are any Tory Members from the Highlands still present I should like to ask them whether they intend to allow this or, alternatively, whether they will allow their constituents to pay much more so that the service can be run economically by private enterprise? The service must be run in one of those ways. If the publicly-owned service is withdrawn will there be no service, or will it be operated by private enterprise obviously at an increased cost to the consumer? The Government advocate the scrapping of the Road Haulage Executive and the sale of all the splendid vehicles which they have been operating. They intend to allow private enterprise to carry the goods at an increased cost to the public.
  1180
  Not many months ago we voted a sum of £360,000 annually to Messrs. MacBrayne's to subsidise steamer-road freight and passenger services in the Western Highlands of Scotland. Will the Government allow them to continue? Of course they will. Private enterprise will be allowed to operate all the lucrative road haulage and passenger bus services. In the remote and unremunerative areas private enterprise will operate and they will be heavily subsidised by the Government. Private enter-pries will have the best of both worlds.
  I do not believe that the people will tolerate that system. We shall certainly take every step we can to explode the myth behind which the Government are trying to hide this dangerous policy. The Road Passenger Executive in Scotland have been doing a good job. Their Report for 1951 shows gross receipts of £14,105,347, with working expenses of £12,579,222, leaving an annual profit of £1,526,125. That is a good record for the year. There is nothing wrong with the Road Passenger Executive in Scotland; but it is to be scrapped. We had it from the Minister last week that the Executive is to be disbanded. It will not be allowed to continue although there has been a profit of over £1,500,000 from Scotland.
  But we shall have subsidised private enterprise, in the way that MacBrayne's are subsidised now to the tune of £360,000 a year. The Government's spokesmen are doing a bad job for Scotland. Our railways ought to have the assistance of all forms of lucrative transport. On page 27 of the Report there is a chart which shows that while charges and fares have increased, they have not increased in the same ration as labour and material costs. The average overall increase in fares and charges is 93 per cent., but the increase in costs as compared with 1939 for labour and materials is 150 per cent. There is a gap of 57 per cent. Obviously, the Railway Executive have not taken the easy way of increasing fares and charges as costs rose.
  It is the intention of the Tory Government to leave the railways in a completely uneconomic position. I warn them that railwaymen of all grades are rapidly reaching the frame of mind in which they will no longer tolerate being the Cinderellas of the British working classes. They

  1181
  are always at the tail-end in the fight for wage increases and better conditions. This has continued ever since I joined the railway in 1920. During the First World War they had to wait until 1918 before they could get national conditions. In the inter-war years when the railways were not paying the railwaymen continually lagged behind other industrial workers.
  I warn the Government that what they propose to do now will have a serious effect on railway finances. If the argument is used that, because the railways are not paying their way, the staff must not have further wage increases to bring them into line with other workers, that attitude will not be tolerated for much longer. When my own Government were in power I argued that they ought to recognise the problem and subsidise the railways to enable them to meet their commitments. Their first charge ought to be to the men and women they employ.
  Many railwaymen do not earn very much over £5 a week. To them life is a painful struggle, especially for their wives who have to try to operate the household budget and to feed and clothe their children. I see many examples of this in my constituency. This state of affairs is intolerable. It ought not to be allowed to continue.
  Also, there ought to be a proper pension scheme for railwaymen and all transport workers. I am often asked to go to a locomotive depot near my home to make presentations to locomotive drivers and others who are retiring. On the last occasion the man concerned had had 50 years' service and he retired without a penny pension. That is deplorable. I know that some salaried staffs on the railways have pensions. I approve of that, but we are now at the stage where payment of superannuation should apply to all grades instead of merely to the few. The sooner the Government grasp that nettle and deal with it the sooner they will have the support of the railwaymen in this connection. During the war great tributes were paid to the work of the railwaymen. In peace-time let us try to do something for them.
  The first job, as far as transport is concerned, is to secure decent wages and conditions, and a sound superannuation scheme, for all employed in the industry,
  1182
  but, instead of that, the Government seem to be set on wrecking publicly-owned transport. In doing so, they are only hastening their own end. Britain must have a healthy transport system, and the sooner a Labour Government is returned to continue the job which it had commenced, the better it will be for all concerned.
  7.51 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Time alone prevents me from dealing with some of the statements made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), but I shall expect the House to agree with me that the hon. Gentleman had either misread or was deliberately misrepresenting the intentions of the Government in regard to transport in Scotland.
  I think Scotland welcomes this debate, because it gives Scottish hon. Members an opportunity to criticise and comment on Scottish administration, and also to get across that difficulty which is always presenting itself to us of obtaining information about the nationalised industries. Everyone knows that we cannot ask questions of Ministers about the nationalised industries, but this debate gives us that opportunity, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) on the moderate and persuasive way in which he opened the debate, although I came to the conclusion that it was probably due to a guilty conscience, in view of the confusion in which he and his right hon. Friends left transport in Scotland.
  I do not think that the Joint Under-Secretary, in his reply, went far enough. certainly not far enough to satisfy me, and possibly a number of other hon. Members from Scotland, but no doubt when the Minister of Transport ends the debate, we shall receive further information and more clarifying facts regarding the future.
  As the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said, the geographical condition of Scotland and the unbalanced distribution of our population make the transport problem one of special significance and one not easy to solve. I agree with some hon. Members who have spoken that our uneconomic lines ought to be a full charge on the taxpayer, and that might also apply to the air as well as the land.

  1183
  I would certainly make it apply to the strategic railway lines. I do not think there should be any question of competition between private enterprise and the State, but that these uneconomic and strategically necessary lines should be made a direct charge on the Exchequer, for it is the people as a whole who benefit from their operation.
  There is really not very much left to say in regard to the railways or the roads, because practically all the speeches that have been made have been devoted to these two subjects. In regard to the railways, all I would say is that the charges for freight are too high and the compartments for passengers too dirty. I know that the freight charges are not the fault of the Railway Executive, but are largely due to the policy of the Socialist Government over the last six years—nationalisation, centralisation, the removal of local control, too many men for one job, and, of course, the high price of coal, which is the vicious spiral again.
  I should also like to join with the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) in paying tribute to the staff employed by the railways, who, despite the fact that they are badly paid, are always helpful, kind and courteous in practically all circumstances. I hope that the lower-paid men of this vast industry will soon get a good opportunity either of queueing up or jumping the queue in order to get improved wages.
  I have, however, noticed one thing in particular, and no doubt the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, who knows the railways so well, will agree. It is that, among the staff, many of the older ones now seem to have lost the interest in their work which they had formerly. I think that is probably due to the fact that they miss the intimate and friendly contact with the management which they used to have before.
  As to the passenger compartments, and especially the third-class ones, I cannot understand why there should be so much dirt, dust and squalor in these old-fashioned and out-of-date carriages. In regard to the modern, first-class sleepers, which I have calculated I have used 3,000 times in my Parliamentary life alone, I wonder why a change has come about. Formerly, they were good and comfortable, but suddenly British Railways
  1184
  came along and we got a new type of sleeping compartment. I suppose it was the new broom, and it had to do something, so it evolved a new type of compartment. Every Scottish hon. Member knows that, to start with, the doors would not shut because the carpet was too thick. It is very odd, but it is true. Then, the racks are inconvenient, and badly placed, and the beds are too high. Everyone knows that, because he has tried to sit on the bed while lacing his shoes, and has found he could not do it.
  These are matters of day-to-day administration of the railways about which we have never been allowed to ask questions in the House, and it is only in a debate of this kind that we can bring forward these points. The only part of the service that does not change is the attendant, who is the same kindly helpful fellow who wakes us up, brings the morning cup of tea and ministers so well to our welfare.
  It might, of course, be a good thing if the Railway Executive could see that railway trains ran on time. I know that there must be a spirit of adventure in not knowing whether one will be 10 minutes too early or two hours too late, but it would help in making one's engagements if one knew whether one's train would arrive moderately on time, and that there was some possible connection between railway time-tables and what actually happens when the trains come along.
  In regard to the roads, I can speak only from local experience but not for the north. The bus service is good, the drivers are competent and careful and the vehicles clean and tidy. There is, however, much discontent, unrest and hardship among these men of big business, as I think they were called by an hon. Member earlier, who lost their lorries which they had acquired so thriftily and carefully over the last 30 years. They have seen them taken out of their hands, but the same staff and drivers are as efficient and as kind as ever they were.
  That only leaves me the air services. The Scottish air service is the poorest in the United Kingdom. Why is that? B.E.A. started off with great hopes and vast subsidies, and yet, after five or six years, something has gone wrong. I am driven to the conclusion that the Government, when nationalising the air services

  1185
  in Scotland, did not take advantage of what already existed. Of course, no one will blame me for introducing the subject of Prestwick, which was at that time the centre of the whole designing, operational and technical life of civil aviation in Scotland. I think they refrained from building on that solid foundation because of their prejudice against and antipathy towards the use of private enterprise.
  Why, for instance, could not the Minister of Supply have asked the Scottish company at Prestwick to have gone on with production of the Pioneer? It was particularly suitable for internal services in Scotland. It is a twin-engined aircraft with a cruising speed of 160 miles an hour. It is capable of carrying 16 passengers and can take off and land in only 50 yards, which made it particularly suitable for use on small and isolated airfields.
  Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman referring to the Pioneer or to the Pionair?
  Sir T. Moore: To the Pioneer.
  Mr. Rankin: As a passenger-carrying aircraft?
  Sir T. Moore: Yes, why not?
  In considering air transport in Scotland, one is almost forced also to consider the continued existence of the Ministry itself. We have now an Advisory Council which will be responsible for routes and licences. Why, therefore, is it necessary to have the Ministry? They do not have one in America, and it seems to me that the Ministry is a waste of time and money. After all, flying is the modern form of transport. That being so, why should not the Air Ministry be merged with the Ministry of Transport and thus save all this trouble? We would also happily retain the services of our trusted and popular Minister.
  One part of the picture painted in the previous debate on Prestwick remained unfilled. We were told all about the operational value of various machines, about the scheme for creating fresh routes, for developing the Highlands, and about the possibility of bringing helicopters to the Islands. The one part of the picture which remained unfilled was the effort or determination to create a design and manufacturing unit in Scotland. It
  1186
  was not because of the skill of the ships' captains or of their engineers or men that Scotland was able to capture the shipping trade of the world in the 19th century. It was because she built the best ships, and just as the Clyde sent out ships to conquer the Seven Seas in the 19th century so Prestwick can and should send out the aircraft to conquer the air above them. There is no reason why they should not do this. They have the skill, the experience. the technicians and the management, and the Ministry of Supply have promised to foster such an enterprise.
  We have now at last a Government which has Scotland's interests at heart. Surely this is the opportunity to start this great manufacturing enterprise that would retain the skill of our engineers and craftsmen in Scotland instead of letting them seep down below the Border. The building of our ships on the Clyde proves my case, and there is no reason why we should not build the aircraft as well. England has owed much to Scotland in the past, and I ask the Government to give England the opportunity of owing still more to Scotland in the future.
  8.4 p.m.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I can hardly follow the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) because not many parts of his speech followed each other. When he went so far as to commend the men who run these services, he might at least have been consistent instead of proceeding to attack them for being dirty in the management of the railways and by saying at the same time that there were too many of them doing these same jobs. We all know that the policy of the hon. and gallant Member's party is that there should be too many men for a limited number of jobs, and, therefore, I could not see why he should condemn it.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) made some extraordinary charges, and I want to give him plenty of time in which to cool down before I deal further with them. He talked about railway and travel conditions in the 19th century and about the wonderful trains then run by a multiplicity of competing railway companies from John o' Groat's to Land's End. Incidentally, he showed just how lost he was, even chronologically, when

  1187
  he talked about a game of canasta he had played on one of those trains.
  The hon. Member suggested that people in the Highlands were able in those days to travel in large numbers comfortably and cheaply. It is nonsense to say that. It was almost the event of a lifetime for the people in the crofts and fishing villages to travel beyond their own islands, apart, of course, from the merchant seamen who travelled all round the world and still do, and the fishermen who sailed round the coast following their calling. To talk about the ordinary crofters or their wives having a choice of first-class railways and beautifully clean carriages is a grotesquely incorrect picture.
  In relation to the standard of living at that time, such travel was a rarity restricted to a small number of people and undertaken only once in many years. What is more, they had not the option then as they have today of travelling by air. On the other hand, the reason why the air services in the Highlands and Islands are relatively so successful is because the other services are so expensive and still take such a long time to deliver passengers or goods to their destination.
  There is one question which I should like the Minister to answer. It concerns something to which I hope the Labour Party will adhere when they once more return to office. It is accepted in principle by hon. Members on all sides of the House that we must carry some uneconomic services which can never be expected to be run at a profit. That is accepted in private business as well. Some businesses continue to operate unprofitable sections and average costs with paying ones in the hope that in time they will become profitable, or for prestige or for other reasons. But there comes a stage in rising costs and especially in the development of transport when it is impossible for private companies to operate at all in some areas.
  Is it accepted by both sides of the House that, where such circumstances arise, the State is prepared completely to undertake such services itself? It is 'important to know that, because the day may come when it will be impossible for even MacBrayne's to continue their services in the Highlands and Islands owing to rising costs except by charging further increased rates to people with about the
  1188
  lowest standard of living in Great Britain and who already pay very high prices for these services. It may be, on the other hand, that the subsidy would have to be increased until it reached 100 per cent.
  We are at the stage now where MacBrayne's get over £1 million over each three years, and we are at the stage now where we have to consider whether we are going to run such services as social services and for industry and the community or not—to run them as services for the nation as a whole, regardless of making a profit. That is old Socialist doctrine, so nobody on this side of the House should be in the least bit stunned by the suggestion.
  We are at the stage now where MacBrayne's would not exist if there were no subsidy and there were competitive private enterprise; though I see no signs of any resurgent private enterprise coming in to compete. There are various parts of the Highlands where circumstances make it necessary to consider a policy of providing the services wholly as social public services. It is of no use arguing party politics over it. Private enterprise itself cannot meet the need. What we have to clear our minds about is how far are the Government and the nation prepared to provide the services in those areas—to provide a complete integrated transport service for the community freed from the primary consideration of balancing budgets and making profit in itself. The principle is accepted; the argument is in degree.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State raised a point when he mentioned the Crofter Counties Scheme expenditure and the expenditure upon various other classes of roads. He spoke as though all this sort of spending were rather exceptional, and not going on in other parts of the country. When we debated recently the MacBrayne subsidy I rather took exception to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport coming in and describing himself as a sort of Santa Claus delivering up bags of treasure to the Highlands and Islands from the charity of the Treasury. That would take a lot of swallowing at any time. In this particular case, there was just no argument for it at all.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State tonight also mentioned the figure of £200,000 in relation to the Crofter

  1189
  Counties Scheme as though it were an immense sum, but if it costs £10,000 per mile of road that sum will provide 20 miles of road; or on the basis that it costs £8,000 a mile, it would provide 25 miles. Just imagine 25 miles of that standard of road in the whole of the Islands and Highlands of Scotland, in all the crofter counties. It is not such an awful lot of money; it is a small mileage, indeed, when worked out that way. It would take many years and many millions of pounds to develop the roads there on the basis of the crofter counties standard; and to tell us that £200,000 is going a long way is not keeping in mind the facts or the needs.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) suggested that the Joint Under-Secretary of State might try bicycling—and in summertime, which I thought pretty kind—around Shetland. I suggest that he might, indeed, try it, but, for a National Liberal Unionist Under-Secretary, it may be necessary to use a tandem. I think it would be very good for the Joint Under-Secretary of State and that it would be a good thing for those delegations of hon. Members of this House who go off expensively to the ends of the earth—on which other unwise ones as well as politicians have their eyes, according to Scriptures.
  I think it would do a good many hon. Members a good deal of good to learn something first of their own country. It seems to me there is no subject on which hon. Members are weaker than geography, and especially that of their own country. Most hon. Members know what is happening in Korea and where it is: but I am hanged if they know what is happening in the Western Isles. These discussions have often seemed to me unreal with right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench—the Front Bench on both sides—not seeming to be very keenly aware of what is going on in Scotland—especially in the remoter parts. It is pretty hard not to feel sometimes that one is speaking to strangers here, so far as the difficulties of those areas are concerned.
  Indeed, if one asks hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to consult a map, they find that the Orkneys and Shetlands are put in a little coloured box in the Firth of Forth, and that the Western Isles are packed in a box set off the Clyde. And
  1190
  one can almost imagine the civil servants putting lead sinkers and weights into these misplaced boxes to get rid of them once for all. The Islands, especially, their problems and people and roads are all a remote mystery to most Ministers present and past.
  Mr. Woodburn: My hon. Friend will hardly say that I do not know the roads.
  Mr. MacMillan: My right hon. Friend knows the mainland roads—I am sure he does. Indeed, he and I have—sometimes together—had good reason to know what those roads can be like. However, no Government we have had yet can afford to be complacent about their record in relation to those remote areas. I know every Secretary of State makes a trip in a fishery cruiser around the North and North-West coasts and Islands. He goes across, then, to Orkney and Shetland, across the Pentland Firth—during August, guaranteed to be about the best month of the year in which the Secretary of State can go round the Highlands and Islands—and then he is put ashore again near St. Andrew's House, whereupon he is even more at sea than he was when he was afloat, because his impressions are nearly always merely physical impressions, and those of the most miserable. Then he falls back upon his civil servants, who prepare the answers for the Highlands and Islands M.P.s least likely to give him any further trouble or need for action till his next voyage—or, his successor's.
  It is axiomatic that transport is the basis upon which Highland development has to be founded. That has been accepted by every committee and Government ever to investigate the Highlands problem. Without adequate and reasonably cheap transport—or, at any rate, transport with rates comparable to those in other parts of the country—and without regular transport and modernised transport and integrated transport—though I do not like the word—but without reasonable and modernised integrated transport we shall get no place in developing the Highlands.
  We can make all the plans we like, Governments can make all the plans they like, and make all the promises they care to, and Highlands Panels can give all the advice any advisory body could ever give—incidentally. I should like to see much more of the advice carried out—and we

  1191
  can have all the Highlands and Islands Commissions and all the Royal Commissions for Scottish problems that any Government can appoint; but, without better and cheaper transport we shall get no place in developing the Highlands—and we shall not even enable the Highlands to recover the relative prosperity they knew in respect of certain industries such as the fishing industry, because other adverse factors have come into play in the meantime.
  It is a wonder to me how some of those industries have managed to survive—such as the Harris tweed industry in the Outer Hebrides. How that has managed to survive I do not know, with all the factors loaded against it; with 90 per cent. of the raw materials coming in from the mainland at excessive freight charges, and going out again processed through all the difficulties and barriers of heavy freights and the delays in transport, into competition with the products of Gallashiels and Yorkshire and elsewhere nearer the big markets.
  It has managed to prosper, thanks to the tenacity and enterprise and skill of the local people. But that it has managed to prosper is no thanks to the transport system, and no thanks to the imposition of taxation—like the Purchase Tax at 66⅔ per cent. It is marvellous to me that that industry has managed to survive at all in face of all those adverse factors. But it is an outstanding exception. Others have perished.
  The white fish and herring industries have suffered because they have not found it profitable to market their catch. That is true to a large extent of lobsters, too. Because of transport difficulties and delays and high costs the fishermen lose much of the real value of their consignments and their profits are very greatly reduced. Everywhere in the area we are faced with this transport problem; but, exorbitant though these freight charges are in Argyll or Ross-shire, they are much higher in places like Orkney and Shetland and the Outer Hebrides. Indeed, the cost of living generally in the Outer Hebrides is about 10 per cent. more than it is even in towns like Inverness, which reckons itself to be at the end of the tapering charges scheme of the mainland in a high freight costs area.
  1192
  It is no use expecting Members for Highland constituencies to say they are satisfied with the measures of the last Government, this Government or the one before it. We are not. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, we should not be fit to be Highland Members, especially Island Members, if we said that we were for one minute satisfied with the present conditions. We are conscious of the effort and goodwill on the part of all Governments; but we are conscious also of their remoteness and their lack of understanding of our problems and our people and of the needs of these places.
  We would not hear much about what is being done for the Highlands roads, ferries and bridges if they happened to be in Midlothian, Clackmannan or Central Ayrshire, or somewhere around Glasgow or Edinburgh. It would be taken for granted that a very great expenditure was necessary for the construction, maintenance and repair of these southern roads. As I have often said in this House for many years, it is just that accident of erosion and geology, and possibly some other cataclysmic disturbing factors, that cut away from the Hebrides the neighbouring Island of Britain, to its misfortune, which is why we are not asking for a trunk road, instead of a steamer service, to be constructed and maintained at a very high cost.
  Why we should be labelled as poor relations, and rather undeserving ones, who always have to come back for more simply because nobody ever makes a job of the thing in the first, second or even third place, is beyond me. I wish hon. Members would think of the Highlands and Islands as part and parcel of Great Britain and of our people as equal citizens with equal rights as well as equal duties in peace and in war.
  We spent millions and millions of pounds on a colonial ground-nut scheme, which is supported equally on both sides of the House while it was thought there was a prospect of it prospering. If the ship did appear to be sinking latterly a little, I would hope that hon. Members opposite would not adopt the traditional role of those creatures who leave sinking ships. I will not use the word associated with that, because one of my right hon. Friends got into trouble over it on one occasion. Everybody supported that colonial scheme. Even now Lord Beaver-brook supports it.

  1193
  We must not say that colonial development is wrong. Not for a minute do I condemn these experiments. But I wish we could try some of them more adventurously and more generously in our own country, within our own borders, in our own Highlands and Islands of Scotland, whether by public agencies or by encouraging private enterprise. After all, it is a much longer way to go from Washington to Alaska to build immense strategic roads than it is to go from St. Andrew's House, or even from the Treasury down here, to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland to build for strategic and economic reasons. Even in Norway they are spending a greater proportion on solving similar problems to Scotland's and which are no easier of solution. In many poorer countries than ours they are able to give greater attention and better services in transport—roads, piers and harbours—than we are doing in this country, and that is greatly to our shame.
  I wish that we might spend on the Highlands and Islands some of those millions of pounds spent on the unlaid eggs of Gambia and on the adventures the present Government are about to enter in respect of the sale at a known loss of millions of pounds of our road vehicles. If we think in terms of the millions that have been poured away in experiments elsewhere, and that are about to be cast away deliberately, in a purely political experiment, it is to our shame that we are not spending a great deal more in developing the Highlands and Islands of Scotland which have contributed much more greatly to our prosperity in war and peace, than those interests which stand to gain from a policy which aims to destroy many of the best elements of the public transport service.
  8.25 p.m.
  Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: Speaking at this late stage of the debate, shortly before the winding-up speeches, I find myself at a disadvantage. If I do not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan), it is only because I think we have had a full ventilation by him and other speakers on both sides about the difficulties of the Highlands and Islands.
  In the short time available I wish to confine myself to two points. One relates to railway freight and the delivery time of goods, and the other to road haul-
  1194
  age depots. A great deal has been said about costs and costing, the effect of any proposed changes in future on employees of the railways, and so on. I do not wish to deal with that because there is no time, but I would stress that in all these things we have a right and bounden duty to consider the consumer who, after all, is the one for whom the services are created, and for whom they function at all. I will speak briefly about the main consumer from the business point of view in the South-East of Scotland, and in this I think hon. Members on both sides will be in sympathy with me.
  I refer first to the time it takes to deliver goods leaving the tweed mills of South-East Scotland to the ports of embarkation for export overseas. I have had brought to my attention pretty forcibly in the last two or three days the fact that it takes railways seven or eight days to haul goods from, say, Galashiels or other burghs in the border country to Liverpool. Whatever we have to say about the future or the past, the present is the thing of which I am speaking, and I say that seven or eight days to take goods from the borders of Scotland by train to Liverpool is an extraordinarily long time, and something ought to be done about it. I ask the Minister to consider jollying this business up a bit.
  I happen to have been informed today that the depot in Selkirk is to be closed at the end of this month. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) has had similar notification in relation to that part of the Scottish borders recently, and also my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray) within the last two or three months. These depots have been closed.
  There has been further consolidation of vehicles, not always to the advantage of the consumer. We have had representations from the N.F.U. and other people whose goods are waiting to be hauled that these things are being done to their disadvantage. There is also the consideration of the employees in industry. Those in my area apparently arrived in my part of the constituency this morning with a deputation because they had been informed that their depot is to be closed down, and they must go to Hawick. It is this sort of thing that causes concern.

  1195
  I should like the Minister to answer two or three brief questions. In the first place, I would ask him if he is aware of these actions before they are taken by the British Transport Commission; if he approves of such actions when they are taken in view of what may be taking place in the near future; and, in any case, will he ask those who have to do with the British Transport Commission if they will, in the case of Selkirk, ask for reconsideration to be given in order that the consultative committee may be brought into the situation?
  These things are going on in other areas of Scotland. I make a point of this, because every day a new development is taking place. I ask the Minister to take action and contact the British Transport Commission on these matters. I put these questions in the interests of the consumer and the road haulage employees themselves, and I believe that if these matters are investigated and thought about, it may turn out to be in the interests of the British Transport Commission as well
  8.31 p.m.
  Mr. John Wheatley: I think that the Opposition have shown a great deal of wisdom in choosing, on one of their traditional Supply Days on the Floor of the House, to debate the subject of Scottish transport. I think that the debate today is both well-chosen and well-timed. My only regret is that Government business has been such that both at the beginning and the end of the debate the normal time has been shortened to the extent of our losing one hour of debate, which has cut out quite a number of speeches which, I am sure, would have been helpful to the Minister and to the rest of us.
  Curiously enough, this has been a rather topsy-turvy debate. The classical role of the Opposition on these Supply Days is to expose to the limelight of public opinion a critical examination of the administration under review, whereas the classical role of the Government is to defend the administration which is being criticised. Today these roles have been virtually turned round. While the Government give lip-service in their tribute to the administration of the transport industry, in the House—and more particularly in the country—they are de-
  1196
  nigrating the efforts of these people, with very serious repercussions to the transport industry and the transport consumers.
  This was first of all foreshadowed in a debate last week. The Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made an accusation that the British Transport Commission's Report was deliberately misleading, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, when winding up the debate, did not see fit to answer that particular allegation. It was not as if he had not plenty of time to do so, because for an exhibition of kicking the ball out of the park in order to waste time I had never seen its equal in this House.
  We have had that charge repeated again today. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) made an equally serious accusation. He said that the Report was misleading, and that it was misleading and purposely misleading for propaganda purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If I am challenged, I say that he did say that, and the record will prove it. He said that it was misleading and misleading for propaganda purposes, and when challenged to admit or deny it, he did not deny and would not state for whose propaganda it was misleading. I think this so important that I am going to ask the Minister—I cannot demand—that he expresses his opinion categorically and without equivocation upon this very important subject.
  Does he accept as accurate the statements made in the British Transport Commission's Report? If the allegation is going to be made from the Government that the facts are misleading, and misleading with the intent to misrepresent—an innuendo which is inevitable—it is a very serious reflection on a very great public servant, Lord Hurcomb. He is a man whom we have all found to be most helpful, considerate and co-operative whenever we have taken any problems to him. In the interests of administration of transport in this country, these allegations should be categorically denied by the Minister with a full sense of responsibility.
  But it gets worse. Even the Joint Under-Secretary of State in his speech this afternoon saw fit to cast reflections on the administration which he purports

  1197
  to be here to defend. In dealing with civil aviation, he said that the services were neither adequate nor efficient, saying it in a manner to indicate that under private enterprise they would be both.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: I did not. I asked a question. I said, "Are the services adequate or efficient?"
  Mr. Wheatley: The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to try to demonstrate that they were neither.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: I asked a question.
  Mr. Wheatley: The record will be there. One can ask a rhetorical question, and that was certainly a rhetorical question. But the hon. Gentleman did not relate it to the existing problem of how the services compare with the former services and with alternative services. He talked about the morass and difficulties into which transport in Scotland had got but did not explain what the morass and the difficulties were. He proceeded to deal with the recommendations of the Cameron Committee and tried to establish to our satisfaction exactly how much was being done in implementation of its Report, which I thought was a most contradictory argument.
  I was disappointed in the Under-Secretary. We recently heard him defend the administration of the North of Scotland Hydro-Eelctricity Board, and he admitted that when he was in Opposition he was a wholehearted opponent of that form of public administration—
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: I said nothing of the kind.
  Mr. Wheatley: —and then admitted that since coming into office and being charged with the administration he had been fully converted and had seen the light.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: No, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must not say things like that. What I said was that while the Bill was going through the House I criticised it on the grounds that I regarded it as over-bureaucratic but in the working out of the Measure I had discovered that it was not so bureaucratic as I had thought.
  Mr. Wheatley: The record will be there. In any event, the hon. Gentleman pleaded guilty to a conversion and I was hoping that that conversion would have been translated into this realm as well, since he is now saddled with the responsibility in part for this administration. But instead of that the hon. Gentleman trundled out vague and general criticisms unsupported by any evidence.
  I know it would be entirely out of order for me to make any detailed reference to the Measure dealing with transport which is before the House, but the hon. Gentleman developed some aspects of the proposals contained in the Bill with which I wish to deal. He said the Bill represented What was in the Government's mind in relation to transport. If that be so, the Bill should have been presented in dummy.
  It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman should have treated the House so cavalierly. When dealing with the proposed functions of the new Scottish railway organisation, he purported to give the House a very important statement. When some of us attempted to elicit more details about these functions, the hon. Gentleman made a surprising remark, "You had better read it more carefully in HANSARD tomorrow." How can we carry on a debate if we have to wait till tomorrow to appreciate what is being said by the Government spokesman? I hope that when he deals with the matter the Minister will be rather more forthcoming and rather more explicit in his explanations of the proposed duties of the new authority.
  I think every hon. Member who has taken part in the debate has at least purported to admit that transport, particularly in Scotland, is a public service, but I wonder very much whether hon. Members opposite really believe it. If there is going to be a public service, there must be certain conditions which must be fulfilled. We must be prepared to carry all kinds of traffic at all times and give equal terms to all users. We must also appreciate that the rates may not reflect the difficulties of any particular branch of transport or any particular service. The keynote of it all must be that service must come before profit, and this is a condition which can only be satisfied in a public body and not by a profit-making, private enterprise undertaking.

  1199
  As my right hon. Friend said in opening this debate, we meet under the shadow of disruption and disintegration, and our examination today should be: How is transport in Scotland developing under the Act of 1947? Is it nearing its objective? How can it be improved; and ultimately can it be effectively replaced as a public service by an alternative form of private enterprise service? The Joint Under-Secretary of State made no attempt to deal with those broad issues, but if we can get any answers to them we shall find whether there is any justification for the existing administration or any justification for the proposed changes.
  We start with this. Every commission and committee that has reported on this matter has stressed the need for unification and co-ordination of transport in Scotland. That was recently reinforced by the Commission's own Report, by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) and by the Cameron Report. Does the Minister of Transport accept what the Commission, the Scottish Council and the Cameron Committee say on these matters or does he reject it? If he rejects it, will he explain on what grounds and not wave it all aside in an airy-fairy manner. The onus rests squarely on the Government to justify the change, and we want the case to be supported by evidence and not just by doctrinaire principles.
  There has been little evidence to support the proposed change. It is true that hon. Members gave individual examples drawn from unknown sources showing how the system may or may not be operating in certain circumstances, but it was all rather absurd. We do not know the source of these charges, and in any event the Minister will agree that these large issues are not decided on hand-picked examples. We all realise that the present administration can be made more perfect, as all administrations can, but we do not need to go to far-reaching and great decisions because someone like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) produces so-called evidence and quotes allegedly comparable rates without giving the source of this authority, though he admitted that they might not give a fair and true picture.
  1200
  I am not going to deal with all the trivial examples, because I say it is on a broad basis that these facts have to be determined and a decision taken. The Minister of Transport, who is threatening to disrupt the whole of transport, must come here with more forceful and tangible evidence to justify this policy in the eyes of the people of Scotland. This has to be done in relation to each of, the branches. It has to be done in relation to railway and also road passenger transport, to road haulage, to docks, inland waterways and civil aviation. This same criterion must be applied in relation to each local area in Scotland and they have to try to reconcile it with their previous decisions.
  During the debate last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. W. Reid) raised the question of the Inglis Report on Glasgow passenger transport. One would imagine from that debate that the Government were prepared to accept in general principle the broad recommendations of that Report; that they had asked the various bodies to look into it with a view to reporting to the Commission who, in turn, would report to the Minister. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain, if he is prepared to accept the broad general principles of that Report which will have far-reaching effects in the West of Scotland, how he hopes to achieve the desired result if he disintegrates these public services? Finally on this broad aspect, can we have real evidence of whether there has been any substantial failure in this major policy?
  Now let me deal first with the railways. Manifestly, because of the economic difficulties attached to the railways and the fact that there are no prospects of the railways becoming a profit-making body in Scotland, Her Majesty's Government have decided in their wisdom to leave the railways in public hands. Had they been likely to yield a profit in the future, I am sure that they would have followed the way of road haulage. But while we on this side of the House recognise that there may be many improvements still to be made on the railways, and that we must always be ready to criticise and put forward constructive suggestions, can the right hon. Gentleman deny that there has been a tremendous improvement in the railway service since nationalisation, and that there will be

  1201
  even greater improvements once the difficulties of capital expenditure have been overcome? One thing which is preventing the right development of the railways system in this country, as evidenced by the Report of the Transport Commission, is the difficulty attached to capital investment.
  Here again, the Report of the Transport Commission and their Statement of Accounts claim that they have improved the services in almost every sphere. The Report says that they have consistently improved the utilisation of apparatus and staff, and have attained the highest level of efficiency for freight operations yet reached in this country. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that or repudiate it? He roust remember that these facts are contained in the Report. He must give us a justification for his repudiation, if he is riot going to accept them. We have had some enlightenment—or alleged enlightenment—about what is to happen in Scotland. It is to be an area—
  The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): It is a kingdom.
  Mr. Wheatley: Yes, but for transport purposes it is an area. It is to be treated as a separate area. The White Paper says that this will encourage healthy rivalry between areas. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain how this healthy rivalry is to be developed between the area of Scotland and the area of South-West England? Will he explain that, since the two places are not in competition?
  Let him bear in mind, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove bore in mind, that ever since 1921 it has been recognised by everyone who knows anything about railways that they have to be based on longitudinal lines and not on lateral lines as far as Scotland is concerned. I wish the Government would keep that in view when they talk about a self-contained Scottish area. It seems to me that they cannot reconcile many of their views and that these are voiced more with an eye to public slogans than to the public interest.
  The Under-Secretary of State said that this new body, which at one time he thought would be able to solve the problem of delay in fixing charges in Scotland, would have duties and powers in rela-
  1202
  tion to charge-fixing and then when faced with the White Paper denied they would have any such powers. If the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper he will find it is interesting. Of course, I do not know whether he has read the first or the fifth edition. The one presented to the public was the fifth and he may have read the first—
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: I have read them all.
  Mr. Wheatley: I wish they could all be made public because we should all find them interesting.
  Then the hon. Gentleman said that this body was going to carry out a survey of a road and rail scheme in Scotland. Will he explain how they are to do that if the services are to be disintegrated?
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: That board deals only with the railways. Later, I began to speak about the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, which, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, covers both road and rail.
  Mr. Wheatley: But how is the committee to consider it if there is to be disintegration of the services? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will think that out, and when he is reading HANSARD tomorrow he might get the answer to it.
  Now, we come to the question of road passenger transport. I preface my remarks by congratulating my hon. Friend and next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald), on a most delightful and informative maiden speech. He indicated that he had a wide and personal knowledge of the subject; and as one of the purposes of these debates is to educate the Minister himself, the Minister will have found the speech of my hon. Friend most educative and enlightening. We shall look forward to many further contributions when my hon. Friend will further enlighten and educate not only the Minister, but his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  My hon. Friend made the very interesting statement—again, I hope the Minister will either admit or deny it—that 61 per cent. of the road passenger transport services in Scotland are not paying propositions. If they are to be broken up, leaving private enterprise to skim off the cream and leaving as a public concern the non-paying services, what is going to happen to the services?

  1203
  One of two main things will happen, and this is equally applicable to road haulage. Private enterprise will certainly not take over the uneconomic section. Either the public body will have to take them over, or the public will be deprived of the services. If the public body take them over, they will have to run them at a loss and we will get further criticism from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they are to be run as a public service, they will need, at any rate, to be run under public ownership, and yet the Government are taking away from public ownership the profitable branches which enable them on a broad national basis to equalise their affairs and to allow these services to be run, although uneconomic in themselves, as part of an integrated paying service.
  What is the criticism about the road services? With regard to Scottish omnibuses, the Transport Committee's Report says:
  "There is an increase in the estimated passenger miles in 1951 over 1950, and an increase in the average journey in miles."
  The Report on Industry and Employment in Scotland tells of the many increasing services in Scotland from nationalised transport.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the justification for a departure from that system, or wherein lies the alleged failure of the public service under the British Transport Commission? Does he favour in road transport a return to the old private pirate system, where the pirate buses came in and took their full share of the traffic during the peak hours and then went off the road and provided no service during the other hours of the day? Is that what they are after, because that is consistent with the principles they enunciated?
  Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Taking off the cream every time.
  Mr. Wheatley: It is in regard to road haulage that the big sell-out will take place, where the public service will be sacrificed to private greed. In that sphere we have a smooth-working service, despite criticisms made by hon. Members opposite. In the Scottish division, where we have taken over 250 separate undertakings with 4,000 vehicles, we have a network operating all over Scotland. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state
  1204
  whether, in his opinion, it is operating well or badly. If badly, let us have the concrete, definite and broad evidence of that.
  The Road Haulage Executive have established regular services between all the main centres of Scotland, empty running has been reduced to a minimum and the introduction of the night trunk services has considerably improved running times. Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute these facts? There has been co-ordination with the railways, Scottish Omnibuses, Limited, and the dock authorities providing a more economic and better transport in Scotland. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that? If he does not, why is he disrupting it all?
  Perhaps the most important advance in this sphere is the reliable services now available in sparsely-populated areas. What is to happen there? Normal commercial considerations would prevent private enterprise from developing in those areas because by and large they are not economic and could never be run as a public service except in an integrated service. The building of new depots has taken place at Dumfries and Inverness and authority has been given for one at Campbelltown. Private enterprise would not build depots there, but the public service will.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does the right hon. and learned Member mean 'bus services?
  Mr. Wheatley: No, road haulage depots. Spread over the country, where the industrial areas can compensate for the sparsely-populated parts, that is possible, but private enterprise cannot do it. What is to happen if these organisations are sold up and sold out? Is there to be any restrictive covenant in the conditions ensuring that the service will be maintained in those areas, or will the purchasers be able to buy up these transport units in the remote parts and bring them into the industrial areas and run them in competition with the services there, leaving the areas in which they previously were completely denuded? Is there to be any regard for the interests of the people in those areas?
  Mr. MacLeod Mr. MacLeod rose—
  Mr. Wheatley: I cannot afford time to give way to the hon. Member. Why should they be bought over at tender

  1205
  prices, and not on the same basis as the previous owners were compensated at replacement cost price? Will there be any safeguards to prevent a ganging-up of private interests to reduce the tender prices and let them get these vehicles at cheap rates? That is one of the cardinal principles of private enterprise.
  Major MacCallum Major MacCallum rose—
  Mr. Wheatley: I cannot give way, as there are only three minutes before the Minister is to reply. [Interruption.] If the hon. and gallant Member who has been out of the Chamber long enough will keep quiet, I may get on with my speech. What is the position in regard to the port schemes? My right hon. Friend posed this question and we should like to know the position in regard to the Clyde, Aberdeen and Dundee.
  As regards civil aviation, we have been told that the whole position of the internal air services in Scotland is under review. But it is quite clear to anyone who can read that the proposal is to hand over to private enterprise, with a subsidy, the running of these air services. Private enterprise will not take them over unless they are satisfied that, with assistance, they will make a profit. It is no use saying that no names have been mentioned because we all know the firm concerned is Scottish Aviation, Limited. I think that the public of Britain should know this and I have given notice that I am going to ask this. Before this service is handed over to Scottish Aviation, Limited, may we be told how much they have already got by way of compensation Prom public funds? Secondly, what is the value of their outstanding claims? We ought to know these facts.
  We have here the lamentable spectacle of a great organisation providing a great public service emerging from the difficulties of the transitional period, prepared and ready to provide an even better public service, being disintegrated and attacked by the Government responsible for its administration. It is one of the greatest breaches of trust of the public interest I have ever come across. The Government are throwing this great industry into chaos. They are undermining staff loyalties, undermining consumer relations and confidence.
  They will go down to history as the Government of co-ordinators—the co-
  1206
  ordinators of disintegration and chaos—because, without any reliable evidence to justify it, they are prepared to sacrifice the public interest on the altar of doctrinaire principle and the interests of financial backers. All that can be said about the road hauliers in this connection is that they have to yield pride of place to the brewers in the order of priority in Tory Party policy.
  Winding up the debate last week, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said:
  "On this side of the House, whether in or out of office, we have never concealed our opinion that private enterprise can give a better service than any national organisation."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1952; Vol. 504, c. 398.]
  But like hon. Gentlemen, he was a victim of a doctrinaire philosophy and did not support his statement by a tittle of evidence.
  I wish to tender a piece of advice to, hon. and right hon. Members opposite. If that is the best they can do—to sacrifice this great national undertaking on the altar of private interests—then the sooner they anticipate the will of the people of Scotland and of Britain, as recently evidenced by the people of Dundee, East, and get out, the better for the country.
  9.2 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I hope that neither the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Wheatley) nor anyone else thought that the arrival of this glass of water just as he was referring to the influence of brewers in the Conservative Party was an attempt on my part to dissociate myself from an important national industry.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that this has been a topsy-turvy debate, and it is certainly true in that so many of the speeches have reflected the great anxiety of Scotsmen on all sides of the House at the inadequacy of services in Scotland after four years' attempt to integrate Scottish transport services. It has been a period full of difficulties, whether in the case of the steamers on the Clyde or elsewhere. But I think that it will be disputed by no one that neither in Scotland nor elsewhere in the United Kingdom has the honourable but to us

  1207
  unattainable ideal of integration been carried significantly far in the course of the last four years.
  It is indeed a topsy-turvy debate in that last week, when we had a debate on transport, I was challenged, not always quite accurately, for not defending the British Transport Commission. Tonight I shall certainly put some of the problems which face the Commission, though I would not suggest for a moment that anyone can be altogether satisfied or, indeed, satisfied at all about some of the problems that still exist, particularly in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether I accepted the suggestion, which he said was made by one of my hon. Friends in the course of the debate last week, that B.T.C. figures in their Report were inaccurate. The figures in the B.T.C. Report are not mine any more than the figures that I may give in debate tonight or gave last week are the figures of the B.T.C. I certainly do not accept the view, nor was it seriously put forward, that any figure in the annual Report was inaccurate.
  I take my stand on what I said before. The Report is a remarkable document; more biographical, I added, than historical. By the careful selection, very often of absolutely unassailable figures, a case may sometimes be built up quite honourably in favour of a certain policy which another selection might well have varied had that selection been made. Therefore I do not come here tonight to challenge the accuracy of any of the figures given by the British Transport Commission.
  As this debate will automatically come to an end at half past nine, perhaps I had better say straight away that I shall not be able to answer many of the interrogatory questions or to give way many times. But I shall deal with as many questions as I can. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that my task was to defend Government policy in every aspect of transport, road, rail, canals and shipping. But the whole purpose of the 1947 Act was that there should be integration of transport, and the very fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that shows how little integration has proceeded—
  Mr. Wheatley Mr. Wheatley rose—
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman—
  Mr. Wheatley: I will try to make this the one occasion only in which I intervene, but before the right hon. Gentleman passes from that point, may I read to him what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—
  "I wish to refer to what I consider to be the most outrageous misrepresentation of the many misrepresentations that the Report contains."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1952; Vol. 504, c. 372.]
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether or not he accepts that statement.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: What my hon. Friend had in mind was not that any one figure was inaccurate, but that the presentation of one set of figures rather than another constituted in his mind a charge against the Commission. I accept the fact that every figure of that Report is accurate, but if a great many other figures were also included the conclusions drawn from the Report might be very different.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me a particular question about the conclusions of the Inglis Committee Report on transport in the city of Glasgow. I wish I could have dealt at length with the most interesting speech made by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. W. Reid) in the debate last week, but time did not allow. I cannot comment on this report with any value until I have received the report of the British Transport Commission. Only very recently the city transport manager of Glasgow protested at certain aspects of this report and suggested that the first concern of the committee was forcing additional passengers to the railways. This shows the difficulties which exist in coming to a snap decision on complicated matters of this kind.
  The right hon. and learned Member asked me and my party and Her Majesty's Government to stop talking about self-contained transport in Scotland. I thought I had heard that phrase before. From where did it come? It was the exact words used by his right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) earlier in the debate. He said, and I noted his words, "Leave

  1209
  us alone. We are a self-contained country. Let us try out our own experiment of integrated transport." Then along conies his right hon. and learned Friend, in this Opposition of planners, who says, "Stop talking about a self-contained unit. Scotland cannot be self-contained."
  Mr. Wheatley: I was talking about railways.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The observation of the right hon. Gentleman leads me straight on to the subject with which this debate opened. I wish to congratulate the right hon. Member for East Stirling on the speech with which he opened this debate. It certainly set the tone for the debate. I hope we are all agreed that it has been a useful debate, and I hope that for me it has been a profitable one. If one of the purposes of debate is to educate Her Majesty's Ministers, I can assure him that I shall do my best to profit from this one. I only wish that in the last six years debates had had a similar value to Members of the previous Administration. The words of the right hon. Member for East Stirling were indeed sensible words. As Wordsworth says, if I may quote poetry again in this House:
  "Choice words, and measured phrase, above the reach
  Of ordinary men. A stately speech;
  Such as grave livers do in Scotland use."
  I have the fullest agreement with a good deal of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman. I say to him and to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) that it would be untrue to say that Scottish interests are forgotten in the Ministry of Transport or in Her Majesty's Government. He accused civil servants, in a somewhat cold blooded way, of preparing evasive answers to questions about the Western Isles. A surprising number of them come from the Highlands and the Western Isles themselves.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is much less ignorance both in the civil service and in this House about many parts of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland than there is about a great deal which happens in the other part of the United Kingdom. As for the Ministerial head, though I have not lived in Scotland for many years, I come from Scotland, as did my predecessor, my right hon.
  1210
  Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay). If I wanted any reminder of the importance of the Highlands and Islands to the welfare of Great Britain, I certainly found it throughout the war in service in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve.
  The first point with which I want to deal relates to the civil air problems of Scotland. We had a full debate on this question on 16th July, and there was a lot of cross-examination about it a few weeks earlier on 27th May. In last week's debate Scotsmen were not reticent. Perhaps if they had realised that there was to be a full day's debate on Scotland today they might have left a little more time to people from other parts of the United Kingdom. Speeches about the civil aviation problems of Scotland occupied 31 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT out of the 134 devoted to the debate.
  Though I am the Minister of Civil Aviation, I do not think at this stage I need add anything to what was said so ably by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. He told us what the existing position was. He told us of the full freedom to any operator who can discharge certain obligations and of the assurance that there will be no change unless it is a change for the better. He spoke also of B.E.A.'s plans for the development this winter and next year of their ordinary Scottish services and he referred again to the possibility of using helicopters in the Western Islands.
  He mentioned that today for the first time a helicopter has landed on the site of the Dome of Discovery. We must, of course, wait for real services until we have twin-engined helicopters, but I do not see why we could not use singleengined helicopters for ambulance work and gain some experience in that way. I assure the House that I shall be glad to push forward that investigation.
  On the question of the general right to run air services outside the United Kingdom, the House will have heard with interest that on the Air Transport Advisory Council, the new membership of which I announced last week, Sir John Ure Primrose, a most distinguished Scotsman, will have an important post.
  One or two questions were asked about the Prestwick aerodrome and certain

  1211
  obligations between Her Majesty's Government and Scottish Aviation. The answer to the first question about how much compensation has been paid to Scottish Aviation since the take over is that no compensation has been paid. About the second question, "What is the value of any outstanding claims of the company against the Government?" I can say that the claims we recognise against the Government broadly equal the claims for rents that we realise the company have against us.
  The matter is now subject to arbitration. I am prepared to deal with it in greater detail on another occasion. If anyone would like to make that the subject of an Adjournment Motion, the whole matter could be fairly cleared up in that way. The company has claimed a large sum for compensation rent. That question is still being negotiated. I shall be glad to deal with it if a suitable opportunity arises.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling who said in opening the debate, "Treat us as a self-contained country and leave us alone; do not sacrifice us to Tory dogmas," gave the impression that none of the happenings in British transport as a whole are happening in the kingdom of Scotland. Of course, it is wholly untrue. I gave the House last week the United Kingdom figures for the huge growth in C licences, but the same applies in Scotland, and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) drew attention to this fact.
  What has happened in Scotland? In 1945, there were 23,000; in 1946, 28,000; in 1947, 36,000; in 1948, 44,000; in 1949, 51,000; in 1950, 56,000; in 1951, 60,000; and up to June, 1952, 62,000. Over the whole field of transport, the problems of Scotland in regard to road haulage services are not all that dissimilar to the problems of the United Kingdom as a whole.
  I shall later, if time permits, come to one or two features in which they are very different, and in which I have some suggestions to make. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East asked what was going to happen to purchasers—if I may anticipate legislation to this extent—who,
  1212
  under the forthcoming Bill may buy transport units and then leave remote areas for more profitable districts. I would refer him to Clause 8 and Schedule 1 of that Bill, and assure him that this matter was very much in all our minds when we were drawing up the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald) made a very interesting maiden speech, in which he referred to the Government's White Paper on policy. He said that the word policy was rather a misnomer, and I hope he will not regard it as offensive if I say that his reference to his speech as being non-controversial was rather a misnomer. It was a spirited speech which is very welcome in these pedestrian days. He asked me about the 1930 Act in regard to passenger and rail services in Scotland.
  I accept the view that the 1930 Act has worked remarkably well despite the difficulties which had to be met, but I announced today, in answering a Question that was not reached, that the Government have decided to set up a Departmental inquiry into the working of the 1930 Act in the light of modern conditions. This does not argue any suspicion as to the need for the Act or doubts as to its success, but some things have happened recently, and I will enumerate three of them.
  There has been a very important High Court decision in regard to contract carriers. There is a wide disparity between the cost to many people of travel by rail or bus. The British Transport Commission, notably in Scotland, has acquired a large number of passenger bus services. In the light of these three new considerations, it seems to me desirable that there should be an inquiry into the working of the Act. I am glad to say that Mr. Thesiger, Q.C., has accepted the office of Chairman, and included in the Committee will be Mr. Reid, formerly Lord Provost of Aberdeen. If hon. Members read HANSARD tomorrow they will find the names of the other members as well.
  If I may now refer to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to ports and piers, and might refer, in passing, once again, to the forthcoming Bill, I would say that, in Clause 18 of the Transport Bill, there is a repeal of the Commission's power to make schemes for trade harbours. As

  1213
  hon. Members know, there has been a great deal of opposition locally to the Clyde scheme, and a certain amount to the Aberdeen scheme. Under the provisions of this Bill, that scheme-making power will come to an end.
  We have had a number of very interesting speeches, including those from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum), the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), with some of whose remarks 1 hope to deal, and my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Commander Donaldson) and Ayr (Sir T. Moore). To deal with one point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll, on the appointment of the Transport Users' Committee, I will see that he is supplied with a list of the interests to be consulted before I appoint the Committee. The present members were, I think, mostly appointed by the former Minister of Transport, but there is no party politics in this matter. We want to look again at the composition in Scotland, or indeed elsewhere, and widen the scope of this Committee, and there will be a considerable new opening for this Committee in the Bill that we are not able to discuss today.
  I now come very briefly to the most important problem of all, the real problem that exists in Scotland and particularly in the Highlands and Islands for the people who live far away from London or other great industrial centres and on whom I fully recognise the burden of transport falls most heavily. I want to say to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) how very sorry I am that I did not hear his speech—I shall certainly read it tomorrow—and I know from the observations of my hon. and gallant Friend what a valuable contribution he will have made to this debate.
  I can tell the House that I have been looking, as no doubt have other hon. Members, with the greatest interest at the experiment now on the verge of starting in Norway whereby the three Northern Provinces of Norway have been made into a development area. I would most seriously commend to the House in what I believe is a debate which may not end in a Division this development plan which was submitted in June last year to the E.C.A. There are certain aspects
  1214
  of this plan of which no one anxious to help Scottish development can afford to be ignorant, and I think it might well be worth while at an early date to look seriously at the suggestions put forward.
  Mr. Steele: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us particulars of the plan?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I wish it were possible in the time, but I will send it to any hon. Member who wants it as soon as it has been translated, unless the hon. Gentleman himself can translate it.
  I wish it had been possible to deal in detail with the problem of the roads in Scotland, but I can say that with the crofter scheme and the Highlands Development Scheme and their full share of any road funds available, Scotland is most certainly not being forgotten. Unhappily, the scarcity of money and material for road development handicaps these highly desirable schemes all over the United Kingdom.
  Finally, I come to the problem of charges and to what is generally called the tapering charge in Scotland. I have given a great deal of personal time and attention to this. The hon. Member for the Western Isles knows that I have had a talk with him and Members of all parties on this matter, and I hope at an early date to have a talk about it with Scottish Members in general. This is, of course, a matter for the British Transport Commission, but they watch with interest what is said and done in this House.
  The whole problem of the passenger and freight charges in Scotland is one to which the whole House ought without distinction of party to address itself. I know there is not much case for a passenger tapering charge. I have gone very carefully into that. If, in fact, such a charge were made it would mean that there would have to be a steady reduction in fares between the 100 miles—at which the tapering now stops for freight—and it would have to apply all through the line to passenger charges as well.
  I am assured after careful examination that if the British Transport Commission thought fit to introduce such a scheme they would only be recouped on the money they had lost on lower fares elsewhere if there were an increase of 33½ per cent. in the number of people who travel over 300 miles. Unfortunately, at

  1215
  the moment 90 per cent. of the people travel much less than that, and only 10 per cent. travel over 300 miles.
  As for freight charges, there are, of course, definite concessions. It has been posed by the Cameron Committee whether the limitation on tapering which now stops at 100 miles should continue to 200 and up to 300 miles. and I am sure that the British Transport Commission in drawing up their merchandise charges schemes will weigh these considerations very carefully. It will be for people in Scotland to make their case to the Commission and after publication of the scheme to the Transport Tribunal.
  We are hoping to introduce in forthcoming legislation provisions which will enable the British Transport Commission to offer more attractive rates and to lower their rates when they see an opportunity to do so. Though the undue preference Clause must remain and though there is, as hon. Members will know, the protective Clause as well—Clause 20, I think it is—we have given a field for manoeuvre in the Bill which will be of the greatest possible advantage to the British Transport Commission.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: Would my right hon. Friend give way a moment? While he is on that point, will he say whether the scheme which was put forward by the White Fish Authority has been considered?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If my hon. Friend had been here she would have heard that dealt with by the Joint Under-Secretary for State.
  As I said, in the field of road haulage I have hinted at certain changes that will be made in the passenger field in answer to some of the points raised in the maiden speech. I think there are only two other points remaining that I recollect having been raised by hon. Gentlemen. One was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk. It dealt with the closing down of a depot in his constituency. I have made arrangements with Lord Hurcomb under which no action will be taken in the interim period which will conflict with the already announced intentions of the Government,
  1216
  but within that field, of course, the British Transport Commission must be free to conduct its day to day business in the way that seems best to it. However, I will certainly see that the British Transport Commission is informed in that particular case.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dunbartonshire, West, who made, I think, a most moving speech, if I may say so without being patronising, dealt with the fears and doubts among the men on the roads and on the rails. I can assure him that, allowing for our political views, and our definite intention to make a fundamental change in the Act of 1947, anything that I can do to reassure the men concerned who will be affected under the new settlement, to protect their pensions, their compensation, and their conditions of service, I shall do my utmost to secure.
  Now this has, as I said, been an interesting debate. It leaves unanswered many problems in Scotland to which the attention and the intelligence of Parliament—of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides—should assuredly be directed, but, I think, it has had very profitable results. I do not know from some of the movement that is going on on the Front Opposition Bench whether somebody is going to move that my salary should be reduced. I very much hope not, but, even if that should be the case, I shall gladly give way, but I do thank hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House for the way they have approached the discussion today.
  Mr. Wheatley: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, is he not going to say a single word about the most important aspect of this debate—the justification for the disintegration of the services in Scotland?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I said earlier on, we have already had last week a very full debate, in which Scotland played a large part, on road transport and on the railways, and on civil aviation, and on all other aspects of the Government's proposals, and I think that, as we have had a debate from the point of view of the United Kingdom, so today we have had a debate in which particular attention has been given to the problems of Scotland.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions reported:
  That a sum, not exceeding £1,820,857, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Central African Federation for the year ending on 31st March, 1953.

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1952–53

  £

  Class II, Vote 8, Colonial Office

  652,635

  Class II, Vote 5, Commonwealth Relations Office

  1,168,222

  Total

  £1,820,857

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1952–53
    CLASS I
    That a sum, not exceeding £8,570,569, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class 1 of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS II
    That a sum, not exceeding £55,144,104, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates.
    CLASS III
    That a sum, not exceeding £54,625,447, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates.

    CLASS IV
    That a sum, not exceeding £186,700,819, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates.
    Resolutions agreed to.
    It being Half-past Nine o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply) to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes V to IX of the Civil Estimates and of the Revenue Departments Estimates, the Ministry of Defence Estimate, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates and the Air Estimates.

  CLASS V

    HOUSING, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, HEALTH LABOUR AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS VI

    TRADE, INDUSTRY AND TRANSPORT
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates."
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS VII

    COMMON SERVICES (WORKS, STATIONERY, &C.)
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS VIII

    NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES (PENSIONS)
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

  CLASS IX

    SUPPLY, FOOD AND MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1952–53
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1952–53
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Ministry of Defence Estimate."
    put, and agreed to.

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1952–53
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1952–53
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Army Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.

    AIR ESTIMATES, 1952–53
    Question,
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Air Estimates,"
    put, and agreed to.
    [For details of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1952; Vol. 504, c. 887–894.]

    WAYS AND MEANS [24th July]
    Resolution reported:
    "That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1953, the sum of £2,160,923,260 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    Resolution agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
    "to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-three and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

  MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.33 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a consolidation Bill, and I think it would be right that I should say a brief word about it because it is a Bill of considerable importance. It contains 133 Clauses and six Schedules, but it makes it possible to refer to one single Bill instead of having to refer to a very large number of pages in admirable volumes such as Stone's Justices Manuel, covering Acts which go back over a hundred years, but notably such well-known Acts as the Summary Jurisdiction Act, or the Indictable Offences Act, 1848.
  I think it is right that a tribute should be paid to the great and, of course, entirely non-party effort which has led to this Bill. It is a considerable achievement, because when the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) first set out on this adventure early last year it was thought that it would not be possible to achieve the result without substantial changes in the law, which would involve a complicated Bill. But the work undertaken under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman, as so often in these matters, particularly with the assistance of Sir Granville Ram, led to the conclusion that it would be possible, after all, to do this job by means of consolidation.
  I am sure that the House would not think it improper for me to mention that Sir Granville Ram, who very nearly literally wore himself out by his efforts in this and other directions, is now recovering his health. In November of last year, a Committee was, therefore, set up under the chairmanship of Lord Llewellin, which undertook this great task of consolidation, and I think that Lord Llewellin deserves the thanks of the House for the work which he did. It has resulted in a really useful achievement.
  I would say one word of warning. If hon. Members should look at the Schedule where they will find a very large number of Acts referred to as being amended and in some cases repealed, I hope that they will not be disappointed

  1221
  to find that a number of them cannot be repealed. The reason for that is a simple one. This Bill deals only with magistrates' courts. In a large number of these Acts there are, of course, matters concerned with other courts, and therefore it is not possible to remove them altogether.
  I think that it will be found that there has been a great degree of simplification, which will not only facilitate the work of those who have to administer the law, but simplify the law and make it more intelligible to the general public, which I think the House will agree is a laudable object.
  9.36 p.m.
  Sir Frank Soskice: I think that the House always welcomes a consolidation Measure, and that this one in particular will be welcomed on both sides of the House. It is an extremely useful Bill. It does, as the Attorney-General has said, make it unnecessary to refer to the pages of a large volume which we frequently had the experience of carting about with us to the courts in the old days, and it takes its place as one of a number of very useful consolidation Measures which have been put on the Statute Book during the last few years. One need only mention the Income Tax Act and the Customs and Excise Bill with which the House has recently been concerned.
  I do not think that many words of mine are really necessary to say how the Bill will be received by my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I should like to join with the Attorney-General in paying my tribute to those, particularly Sir Granville Ram and Lord Llewellin and the members of his Committee, who made it possible for this work to come to fruition. I need only say that we are very glad to see this Bill introduced, and I think my hon. and right hon. Friends will join me in congratulating the Attorney-General on introducing it.
  9.38 p.m.
  Mr. James MacColl: I do not want to detain the House for more than a minute, but I should like to add my expression of appreciation to the very valuable work which is done in this Bill. Of course, the trouble about any consolidation Bill is that when one reads through it there are all sorts of things which one would like to alter. That is certainly true in the case of this Bill.
  1222
  Its general effect, I think, will be of enormous value and service to those who have to try to administer justice in the magistrates' courts. Up till now they have had the almost impossible task, as the Attorney-General said, of trying to administer procedual regulations in a great variety of Acts, dating from very different times, and it is surprising how the courts have been able to carry on owing to a considerable degree of uncertainty as to what is the procedual law. It is only on occasion when a case happens to reach a divisional court that some ruling may be given which at least has the virtue of being clear, although it does not always have the virtue of appearing particularly relevant or particularly helpful. That difficulty will now be overcome and magistrates will have the advantage of being able to turn to one Act and one set of rules to find out what procedure they are supposed to be carrying out.
  We are constantly being told that justice should be manifest and free from doubt. It is equally important that the rules of order and procedure in the courts should be clearly understood by the lay magistrate. I want to quote a passage from the Minutes of the Joint Committee of the two Houses to indicate the tangled mess into which the law in these matters has been allowed to get. On page 23, Lord Schuster said:
  "I have never been able to understand either of the sections?"
  The answer given him by the expert is:
  "I think they are pretty nearly unintelligible, but the difficulty of reconciling them can be stated shortly, I think, by saying that Section 5 of the Indictable Offences Act refers to functions under that Act, and Section 6 refers to functions of justices at large, whether under that Act or any other Act. Section 6 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, refers to functions under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, and there is another Act which also is relevant, the Municipal Corporations Act, which refers to the functions of justices at large …"
  To which Lord Schuster made the very sensible comment:
  "Which is quite unintelligible, anyhow?"
  The answer to that was, "Yes."
  That is the kind of situation in which people who give their services to the courts in an unpaid capacity as magistrates have been expected to steer their way, running the risk that at any time if by chance a case reached a divisional

  1223
  court they might find their actions severely commented upon.
  One of the values of this consolidation Measure has been that a Departmental Committee consisting of people who practise in the courts, sit on the benches and have experience of High Court work as well have got together to try to work out the problems involved. I wonder if the Attorney-General can say whether the Committee will continue so that when from time to time difficult problems arise it will be available to consider them and decide whether or not the rules require amendment. The great value of such a Committee is that it can bring together people who know the high courts and people who know the low courts.
  A certain unawareness of what life is like in magistrates' courts sometimes shows itself among those who sit in high courts. That is understandable and natural because in the nature of things their professional skill has led them into the higher reaches of the law rather than the more humdrum reaches of magistrates' courts. It is valuable to have a Committee of this kind which can bring the two sections together, pool ideas and information and keep up-to-date the Measure which we are now passing and also the rules under it. It would be a tragedy if, having performed this tremendous work which we so much appreciate, we again allowed the law by degrees to become out-of-date and obscure. I hope the Attorney-General will be able to say that some machinery will be kept in being for keeping the Act and the rules up-to-date.
  The Attorney-General: I am afraid that it would not be the same Committee, but we will carefully consider the matter.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Kaberry.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  ARMY ACT AND AIR FORCE ACT
  Select Committee to have leave to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.—[Sir P. Spens.]
  LANCASTER PALATINE COURT (No. 2) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

    Clause 5.—(AMENDMENT OF SECTION 64 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 3, in line 18, leave out from beginning to "in" in line 19 and insert:
    "(a) to a probation officer appointed for or assigned to the petty sessional division".
    9.46 p.m.
    Mr. Norman Cole: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. James MacColl: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. Ede: I think we are entitled to some explanation of this Amendment.
    Mr. Cole: It is entirely a drafting Amendment to conform to the words of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In 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."

    Mr. Cole: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. MacColl: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. Ede: Is this also a drafting Amendment? It seems a pretty long piece of drafting.
    Mr. Cole: The same remarks apply to it as to the previous Amendment. It is a long Amendment, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the drafting is required.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    Schedule. — (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 5, in 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, for 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 shall be added the following new sub-section—

    "(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."

    Mr. Cole: I beg to move, "That this House doth agreed with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is to tie the definition of petty sessional division with that in Section 35 of the Act.
    Mr. Philip Bell: I beg to second the Motion.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

  SEWERAGE SCHEME. MORECAMBE AND HEYSHAM
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]
  9.49 p.m.
  Sir Ian Fraser: The Borough of Morecambe and Heysham is an important seaside resort in one of the most beautiful places in this country, overlooked by the hills and mountains of the Lake District. Many
  1226
  retired people live there, and it may surprise the House to know that 1,000,000 people visit this town during the course of the year for the purposes of holiday or on day trips. The population has increased over the last 50 years due to the foresight and activity of successive councils, able town clerks and a number of enterprising citizens who have developed the hotel, boarding house and entertainment industries.
  So rapid was the development between the wars that a few years before the war broke out it became necessary to embark upon a scheme, which was a considerable one for a town of this size, to provide new sewerage. In fact, a scheme estimated to cost £348,000 was started just before the war broke out. The war brought the works to an end and after the war, after a little delay, the works were re-started, but they had not been going for more than a few weeks when lack of steel made it impossible to continue and many months elapsed. Then, when steel became available, it was hard to get the right kind of labour, and when steel and labour were available delay was occasioned in securing the licences.
  And so it appears that all the stars must set favourably in their courses if an operation of this kind is to proceed smoothly. Twelve years have passed and, for one reason or another, the scheme is not yet concluded. Indeed, it will take a further two and a half years to complete it and, instead of costing one-third of a million pounds, it will cost one and a half million. Within recent weeks the town council and I have made representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Department has granted them some steel. However, it is not enough, and they are still unable to use as much labour as they have and to get on with the job as quickly as they might.
  My purpose is not to blame anyone—neither Government officials nor Ministers of any party and, least of all, the Borough of Morecambe and Heysham itself. Events and affairs beyond their control have caused this delay and the enormous cost and great inconvenience to which they have been put. Although, owing to recent housing measures under my right hon. Friend, they are now building more houses to sell than ever before, and still as many houses to let as ever before,

  1227
  it remains a fact that any great development of housing must be held up until this sewerage scheme is completed.
  The House may be aware that apart from the holiday amenities and industry—if we may call it that—for which Morecambe and Heysham are famous, there is an important port at Heysham undertaking the ferry service to Belfast, and increasing work receiving and sending out tankers which, through the great refinery there, supply the greater part of the North-West. There are, however, important reasons why this work should proceed, and I repeat that I do not come down to the House to blame anybody. I come to ask the Minister and all his officials to realise the handicap, both financial and otherwise, under which this town, through no fault of its own, has suffered. I ask the Minister to do everything that can properly be done to expedite by all means in his power the supply of the necessary steel, the appropriate consent, and in every way to help this town to complete its job.
  It is not only in the interests of the most important town in my constituency, and an important town from the holiday and seaside point of view in England itself, but also it is wasteful of the resources of the nation that works of this kind should be put on and put off, started and stopped, instead of being carried through smoothly.
  It will be the pleasure of my constituents in a very few weeks to welcome hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who will come to Morecambe and Heysham to engage in their annual conference. They will be welcome guests. I hope that while they are there, they will have an opportunity of talking to the mayor and to the town clerk, of seeing how beautiful a place Morecambe is, and subsequently of lending me their aid in the House should my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government not succumb to my blandishments tonight.
  9.55 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) has performed a great service in raising this important subject on the Adjournment debate. He
  1228
  raised it in a very moderate, restrained and considered way, and he put his case most lucidly. He was persuasive and reasoned, and he did not blame either the Ministry or the local authority for the dilemma in which both the Government and the local authority are placed. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving my right hon. Friend due notice of the points he wished to raise and for the calm and courteous way in which he raised the subject.
  I quite agree with my hon. Friend when he said that Morecambe and Heysham were the most important towns in his constituency. Morecambe is a great seaside town. It has many conferences, and surveying from this Box the benches opposite I am sorry to see that none of the Members opposite are interested in the problems of Morecambe. [HON. MEMBERS: "One has now arrived."] Oh, yes, there is now one. He has sat down at the crucial and critical moment, and has saved the soul of the Socialist Party on this occasion. He is their saviour as far as Morecambe is concerned. My hon. Friend would, I am sure, have liked an audience of more than one Socialist to consider these important points.
  The difficulty about the problem is this. The sewerage scheme upon which the Morecambe and Heysham Corporation have embarked has the full blessing of the Government and the Ministry. There is no argument about its necessity. We are well aware of the shortcomings of the present sewerage system. It is antiquated, overtaxed, and is not adequate to the needs of the town. We must provide adequate drainage for existing and future houses. We are aware also of the difficulties and delays which the council have had to face in the long and chequered career of the project, both during and since the war.
  Unfortunately, the recent difficulties are not only confined to Morecambe, but are shared by the rest of the country. Many other local authorities need controlled materials in large quantities for their water supplies, their sewerage schemes, and so on. I realise that Morecambe is in the unfortunate position of having flooding in the area during wet weather.
  Most civil engineering projects are like reputations; they are not valued until they have vanished. Civil engineering, which

  1229
  is the engineer's combat with nature, is not appreciated to the same extent as the more superficial and attractive values of such things as buildings. The moment that something starts springing from the ground, the average person thinks that it is attractive, but generally speaking the things that go on below the ground and against the forces of nature are more important, more hazardous and more difficult than building projects above the ground.
  I believe that in this respect the subject which my hon. Friend has raised is of crucial importance, although not as spectacular as some of the more vivid projects which the public see above the ground.
  It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed," That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Oakshott.]
  Mr. Marples: The present position, as my hon. Friend said, is that three major contracts are progressing simultaneously. These cover the construction of the trunk sewer. If hon. Members are interested, the trunk sewer graduates from a diameter of 18 inches to almost five feet, which shows the difficult technical nature of the operation. It is through the Westgate area and there is an outfall sewer from the main pumping station to the sea. These contracts, with others which have been wholly or mainly completed, will provide a backbone to a new drainage system for large areas in the north-eastern parts of the borough where house building is at present restricted. They will give a new and adequate outflow which is essential if the present flooding, which I agree with my hon. Friend is most distressing, is to be avoided in future.
  The difficulty about the present scheme is that its future progress involves a number of constructions and the nature of the work itself places a very definite limit on the speed at which it can advance. I sit here not only as a humble and very junior Minister, but as a person who before taking my present office with its magnificent remuneration—was engaged on this class of work. I speak from important day-to-day experience in commercial life of what is involved in this type of work. Any job which is as hazardous and com-
  1230
  plicated as this, which involves the forces of nature, is necessarily a slow and difficult job, and the very nature of the work imposes a definite limit on the speed at which it can advance.
  To take an example, the Westgate sewer, which is immediately needed to serve the Branksome Drive housing estate and other sites, is being laid in deep waterlogged ground. That portion of the outflow which has to be laid through the town is meeting difficulties, and a few days ago the Department which my right hon. Friend has the honour to lead was informed of snags which the contractors encountered in Balmoral Road. Always in these jobs underground we find difficulties involved because of the precise nature of the ground to be traversed or tunnelled. The sea outfall, for example, has to be laid three-quarters of a mile from the promenade across sands uncovered only at low tide. Obviously, work of that nature cannot continue at a terrific speed.
  Sir I. Fraser: That is well understood. Is that not, therefore, all the more reason, since nature makes it slow, that man should make it as fast as possible by giving the necessary materials, especially during the summer months, when the tides are low?
  Mr. Marples: I grant the cogency and force of my hon. Friend's point, but it is not merely what Morecambe and Heysham shall receive, but which part of England shall do without in order that they shall have these facilties. If we take the isolated case of Morecambe and Heysham alone, I grant this point entirely, but the question which has to be decided is which part of England shall do without the steel in order that Morecambe may have more. That is a rather more difficult problem.
  I agree with him that as much as is possible to be done should be done, but I can see no prospect—I speak here perhaps partly as a technician and partly as a junior Minister—of the sea outfall, where the work has to contend with the sea and the weather, being finished within the next three years. I am afraid that building and works on the foreshore are a necessary accompaniment for a job of this size. Hon. Members must realise that the sea outfall alone is costing the best part of £500,000, and a considerable amount of plant is inevitable.

  1231
  I wish to make a suggestion to my hon. Friend. If he or his local authority or any consulting civil engineer can make any suggestion as to how this work can be carried out in a speedier manner from a technical point of view, I can assure him that they will be sympathetically considered at the Ministry. But these suggestions must not be merely in general terms; they must be specific and relate to the particular problem. It will not be easy, as I know, because one of the Minister's engineering inspectors who recently visited Morecambe and Heysham went thoroughly into the progress of the work and the immediate needs for steel and timber.
  What about the materials? We all know that such materials as timber and steel are in short supply in this country and are very precious. We may have large timber stocks, but the question of replacement by the expenditure of foreign exchange is one which is occupying a large part of our attention at this moment.
  As regards steel, we have only had a control over the distribution of steel fairly recently, and I am afraid that during the earlier months of this year we could not produce the authorisation at the time for the amounts for which we were asked. I am sorry, and I apologise to my hon. Friend for the fact that we were not able to meet his requirements. We had a large number of local authorities wanting authorisations in connection with various projects, some of them bigger than this one, and we had to spread our allocation as fairly as we possibly could.
  I believe that nearly 1,000 tons of steel have still to be authorised for this particular project. A large part of this is for what is known in the trade as contractor's plant, and that is chiefly for the supply of steel sheet piling, which is used for coffer dam purposes. Steel sheet piling is extremely difficult to supply at the moment because a normal section of a Larsen steel sheet pile weights a ton, and if someone wants 500 steel sheet piles it really means 500 tons of steel. That is a large amount which, as hon. Members will realise, would make many motor cars.
  It may be—I say only that it may be—possible for this steel sheet piling to be hired from some firm of contractors who
  1232
  have in stock the particular type which may be required; I do not know. But I promise my hon. Friend that I will pursue this problem tomorrow in order to see whether some assistance can be given in this respect. I hesitate to tell my hon. Friend, who in his tenacious and charming way furthers the interests of Morecambe in a way which we all admire, that steel sheet piling is really the concern of the Ministry of Works. But I do not think that any Government official should shelter behind the fact that the Ministry of Works is responsible for a particular section of this scheme. I think the Government as a whole must be responsible.
  My latest information is that the applications for steel authorisations made to his Department have all been dealt with. We have issued permits for all the steel needed up to and including this quarter, and the Ministry of Works have also completely satisfied the current needs of contractors who need authorisations from that Department. And for timber too we have met all the needs up to date.
  What about the future? On behalf of my right hon. Friend I cannot make any categorical promises, because we do not know for certain how much steel and timber we shall have to allocate next year. But my right hon. Friend is fully seized of the importance of this scheme, especially in relation to the house building programme of the borough. We will do our best to cover with authorisations the continuing needs of the various contractors. I hope we shall be successful and enable smooth and easy working to be maintained during the coming year.
  May I go into some of the technical details of this scheme? The Westgate sewer which is possibly one of the main sectors of this scheme, should be completed next year. That part of it which runs under the Branksome Drive Estate is being laid now, but there have unfortunately been difficulties recently in connection with it. If it is successfully laid, site operations for the houses can get under way and new houses could therefore be ready by the time the sewer is finished.
  So far as this site is concerned, I think there need be very little further delay. House building in the north-eastern part of the borough would be greatly facilitated, as soon as the Westgate sewer is

  1233
  finished, but until the new outfall to the sea is finally completed house building in this section of the borough, although it can continue, must to some extent aggravate the existing drainage difficulties which are already met with there in the shape of the surcharging of the sewer and flooding from time to time.
  This largely is a technical problem, and technical problems can rarely by solved by the Government deciding whether this or that policy should be adopted. It is necessary for the technicians to decide which sections shall receive priority and what they themselves as technicians decide to do in that section of the scheme. This is an important question, not only from the point of view of my hon. Friend's constituency, but also in connection with the housing programme as a whole.
  My right hon. Friend has expressed and re-affirmed his determination to proceed as vigorously and fast as he can with his ambition to reach a certain number of houses per year. But those houses are obviously of no use unless they are supplied with electricity, water and sewerage facilities.
  Sir I. Fraser: Before my hon. Friend reaches his last sentence, may I thank him for the help he has offered, and say that I know the council, with such advice as they think fit to take, will take every advantage of the careful but nevertheless sympathetic promises he has given them.
  Mr. Marples: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those kind remarks. If the council have any suggestion for an advancement of this work, I can assure him that it will be treated sympathetically. My right hon. Friend, or perhaps I in a more humble position, will receive, if necessary, a deputation from my hon. Friend or the council.
  I know Morecambe and Heysham very well. I am half way between youth and old-age. My personal inclination at the moment is to visit Morecambe for a day or two to recuperate and then to hurry to the hinterland to climb the rocks in the Lake District. My hon. Friend can be assured that, as old age creeps upon me, I shall be more inclined to rest in a deck-chair at Morecambe than to climb the rocks in the Lake District. Anything which my right hon. Friend or I can do for Morecambe will be done.
  The considerations here are mainly technical. They are not necessarily questions of policy. We are in sympathy with the scheme as a whole. We will give it every possible priority consistent with the demand of other local authorities. If we can speed up the work in this difficult time, we shall certainly do so. I hope that the local authority will accept this assurance so that we can proceed with the housing programme in Morecambe as fast as possible.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes past Ten o'clock.

  JAPANESE MILITARY BASES
  JAPANESE MILITARY BASES
  GERMAN GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES (EX-NAZIS)
  GERMAN GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES (EX-NAZIS)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Pig Producers, West Riding (Payments)
  Pig Producers, West Riding (Payments)
  Home-Produced Sugar
  Home-Produced Sugar
  Egg Ration
  Egg Ration
  Fruit Crop (Jersey Canning)
  Fruit Crop (Jersey Canning)
  Golden Syrup Supplies, Leicester
  Golden Syrup Supplies, Leicester
  Food Subsidy (Commodity Allocation)
  Food Subsidy (Commodity Allocation)
ROADS
  Highway Code
  Highway Code
  Speed Limits, Cambridge and North Circular Roads
  Speed Limits, Cambridge and North Circular Roads
  Aylestone Bridge, Leicester
  Aylestone Bridge, Leicester
  Accidents
  Accidents
  Forth Road Bridge
  Forth Road Bridge
  Rail and Canal Bridges (Maintenance)
  Rail and Canal Bridges (Maintenance)
  Park Street Bridge, Selby
  Park Street Bridge, Selby
  Preston New Road, Blackpool
  Preston New Road, Blackpool
TRANSPORT
  Rear Lighting
  Rear Lighting
  Llanelly Traction Undertaking (Sale)
  Llanelly Traction Undertaking (Sale)
  Road Haulage Executive
  Road Haulage Executive
  Road Passenger Service Licences (Committee)
  Road Passenger Service Licences (Committee)
  Passenger Fares
  Passenger Fares
  Licences Appeals Order
  Licences Appeals Order
  Departmental Cars (Sale)
  Departmental Cars (Sale)
RAILWAYS
  Footbridge Accident, Bury (Inquiry)
  Footbridge Accident, Bury (Inquiry)
  Level Crossings (Maintenance)
  Level Crossings (Maintenance)
  Workshops, York (Steel)
  Workshops, York (Steel)
  Road Vehicles
  Road Vehicles
  Transport Commission (Railway Re-organisation)
  Transport Commission (Railway Re-organisation)
SHIPPING
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  Trade Harbours Scheme, Clyde
  Trade Harbours Scheme, Clyde
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Iron Ore (Research)
  Iron Ore (Research)
  Water Pipes
  Water Pipes
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Textiles (Overseas Orders)
  Textiles (Overseas Orders)
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Reception Centres (Report)
  Reception Centres (Report)
  Retirement Age (Extended Service)
  Retirement Age (Extended Service)
  Disabled Persons (Employment Offers)
  Disabled Persons (Employment Offers)
  Postal Drafts (Losses)
  Postal Drafts (Losses)
FUEL AND POWER
  District Heating Committee (Report)
  District Heating Committee (Report)
  Branded Petrol
  Branded Petrol
  Coal and Coke Supplies (Old People)
  Coal and Coke Supplies (Old People)
  Fuel Economy (Ridley Committee Report)
  Fuel Economy (Ridley Committee Report)
  Oil Refinery, Southampton
  Oil Refinery, Southampton
  Pit Ponies
  Pit Ponies
AGRICULTURE
  Egg Supplies
  Egg Supplies
  Chemical Spraying
  Chemical Spraying
  Seed (Cleaning and Sales)
  Seed (Cleaning and Sales)
  FALKLAND ISLANDS (MEAT PRODUCTION)
  FALKLAND ISLANDS (MEAT PRODUCTION)
EMPLOYMENT
  Local Offices, Scotland (Closure)
  Local Offices, Scotland (Closure)
  Remploy Limited
  Remploy Limited
  Wages Councils Recommendations
  Wages Councils Recommendations
  Greater London Area
  Greater London Area
  BRITISH ARMY (GERMAN MARRIAGES)
  BRITISH ARMY (GERMAN MARRIAGES)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Coal (Exports to Italy)
  Coal (Exports to Italy)
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
SCOTLAND
  Craigentinny Camp, Edinburgh (Transferred Families)
  Craigentinny Camp, Edinburgh (Transferred Families)
  Legal Aid Act
  Legal Aid Act
  Law of Succession
  Law of Succession
  POLICE (RECRUITMENT AND WASTAGE)
  POLICE (RECRUITMENT AND WASTAGE)
  COUNCIL WARD BOUNDARIES, BRIGHTON
  COUNCIL WARD BOUNDARIES, BRIGHTON
  ALTERNATIVE WIDOWS' PENSIONS
  ALTERNATIVE WIDOWS' PENSIONS
  OFFICIAL CAR SERVICE
  OFFICIAL CAR SERVICE
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers
  NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  KOREA
  2.37 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given them private notice—namely, whether they have any further statement to make on the course of military operations in Korea.
  THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS): My Lords, there has been no significant change in the military situation or the strength of the opposing land forces in Korea since my visit, and there is not much to add to the statement I made on my return. There are still no signs that the enemy is making any preparations for an offensive, but, as I told your Lordships in my last statement, they remain capable of launching a major offensive from their strongly prepared defensive line without much advance warning. Meanwhile, the Communists are continuing to improve their deeply entrenched position across the peninsula, and, of course, our own troops are constantly increasing the strength of their positions.
  During the last month the United Nations forces have made a number of raids and probing attacks. Some of these raids on enemy positions have resulted in sharp fighting and casualties to both sides. The Communists have also initiated a number of attacks against our outpost positions. They made use of their increased armament of guns to fire over 40,000 artillery rounds and almost 60,000 mortar bombs against the United Nations forces during the first half of July. Over the past few weeks the Commonwealth Division have sent out a number of raiding parties of platoon or company
  298
  strength, but they have not been engaged in any heavier action.
  To-day is the anniversary of the formation of the Commonwealth Division. I was very proud to read General Van Fleet's commendation of their "high courage, unwavering determination and all-encompassing combat excellence." I think your Lordships would wish to join with me in paying tribute to the fine record of the Division. We are very proud of them, and we are confident that, whatever may happen in Korea, they will acquit themselves most worthily.
  The United Nations Commander has continued to make full use of his superiority in air and sea power to limit the capacity of the Communists to undertake an offensive with the forces they have built up during the last twelve months.
  Your Lordships are already aware of the details of the co-ordinated attack of June 23 on the power plants serving airfields, military installations and armaments industry of North Korea. This was followed by a number of subsidiary attacks on these and other power installations. Examination of the photographs taken after the raids suggest that about nine-tenths of the North Korean generating capacity has been put out of action.
  On July 11 and 12 a sustained air attack was made against military targets in the Pyongyang area. Pyongyang is a large enemy garrison city, communications centre and arsenal. The targets, which were carefully identified beforehand by air photography, included antiaircraft installations, tank and vehicle repair shops and parks, supply installations and factories engaged in war production. Leaflets were dropped in advance, warning the civil population that military targets would be attacked and urging them to move away. In addition to these heavy raids, the interdiction programme has continued unabated, and supply areas and depots in other parts of North Korea have been frequently attacked. The Commonwealth air units in Korea have, of course, played their part in these operations.
  During the last month, naval aircraft have participated in the air attacks on military targets in North Korea. By sea, naval units have continued to bombard enemy dock areas, rail communications

  299
  and factory areas. The Royal Navy, in conjunction with the other Commonwealth Navies, has continued to play its full part in these operations. In particular our aircraft carrier, H.M.S. "Ocean," has maintained a consistently high standard of Naval air operations, flying an average of eighty sorties a day.
  I should like to enlarge on the casualty figures which I gave your Lordships after my return from Korea. Since the armistice talks began a year ago, the United Nations forces, including South Koreans, have suffered over 80,000 casualties, and 16,000 of these have been killed. The Commonwealth casualties during this period total about 2,500, including over 400 killed. During the first three weeks of this month, when no major operations were in progress, the United Nations casualties amounted to nearly 4,000. We need to bear in mind in all our discussions on Korea that these casualties on our side are continuing day by day.
  The Armistice talks are still centring around the question of repatriation of prisoners-of-war, and the United Nations' negotiators are standing firm on the principle that prisoners should not be forcibly repatriated. Every effort is being made to find a solution acceptable to both sides.
  On July 1, I informed your Lordships that the United Nations Commander, General Clark, had made a request, which was subsequently agreed to by the United States Government, that an officer from the Commonwealth should be appointed as a Deputy Chief of Staff at General Clark's headquarters, with duties in connection with operations in Korea. The request was for an officer drawn from one of the Commonwealth countries providing combatant forces in Korea, and it has been agreed with the Governments of those countries that the post should be filled by a senior United Kingdom officer. The officer selected, after consultation with the Commonwealth Governments, is Major-General S. N. Shoo-smith. It should be made clear to your Lordships that General Shoosmith will be appointed by the United Nations Command and will be in all respects an ordinary member of General Clark's staff with responsibility solely to him. By making this officer available Her Majesty's Government accept no more
  300
  responsibility for the conduct of operations than they bear at present as a member of the United Nations who have entrusted to the United States Government the conduct on their behalf of the Korean operations.
  There will continue to be only one channel for consultation about Korea, and that is between our representatives in Washington and the United States Government and military authorities there. It is, of course, necessary for us to be kept informed of the progress of operations and of the many technical military matters which arise in the course of the daily work of Her Majesty's Forces in Korea. All this liaison work will continue to be carried out by the Chiefs of Staff's representative accredited to General Clark's headquarters. All other Governments whose forces are engaged in Korea have liaison sections at headquarters in Tokyo, and these arrangements will not be disturbed in any way by the new appointment which is being made to General Clark's staff.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble and gallant Earl for the, statement which he has made, and on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House I should like to identify myself completely with the tribute he paid to the Commonwealth Division. May I ask him this further question? In that there are considerable air forces involved on each side, and in that we have been informed that Russian fighters have been supplied in considerable numbers to the Chinese, can he say how our Air Force is competing—with what success, or otherwise—against the corresponding air force which the Chinese have at their disposal?
  EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: My Lords, I will try and answer the noble and learned Earl from the knowledge I gained when I was in Korea. It appears that no enemy bombers have crossed the Yalu River to do any bombing on our side of the lines, but when our bombers and fighters go over the Communist lines into North Korea, they are—I will not say generally, but quite often attacked Russian M.I.G.15 planes, and have been attacked in increasingly strong numbers. According to the Americans, they are well able to hold their own with the M.I.G.15 although it is slightly faster

  301
  than the Sabre jet. The Americans calculate—this is only their calculation—that they shoot down seven M.I.G.s for the loss of every one Sabre jet.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble and gallant Earl a question? There was a statement a few days ago about some naval operations against the coast of China, and there was a definite statement a few days ago about an air demonstration just outside the territorial limits of the Chinese coast. Can the noble Earl make any comment on those statements?
  EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: My Lords, in answer to the noble Viscount's question, may I say that I also saw the statement which appeared, I think, in the Press? I have no official knowledge of it whatsoever, and I should very much doubt whether it is correct, because when I was with the Royal Navy I was shown their plans and orders, and they were very limited indeed in regard to where they could go in the direction of China. So, as I say, I should not think there is any truth in the statement which the noble Viscount has mentioned. But I will look into the matter.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Should I be right in assuming that no attack on the Chinese mainland would be made by the united Nations Forces without the consent of our Government?
  EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: My Lords, I think I can give that assurance. I am quite certain that no action against the Chinese mainland would be undertaken by the United Nations Command without first consulting us.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, as I raised the question of the chain of command in the debate which took place on July 1, perhaps I may be allowed to ask the noble and gallant Earl a question on that subject. I may say that what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, arises out of a Question put in another place by Mr. Arthur Henderson which was answered by the Prime Minister. We shall all be glad to receive the assurance of the noble Earl that no operations will be undertaken by any unit of Her Majesty's Fleet without the direct consent of Her Majesty's Government—I think we may take that as being what the noble Earl said.
  302
  On the question of the chain of command, the noble Earl will remember that I raised that matter in debate on July 1. I then pointed to the fact that, so far as the United Nations were concerned, through its military committee—that is, the representatives of the Chiefs of Staff at the United Nations—that contact and control had broken down. I think it is a fact. Now the noble Earl tells us to-day that a Deputy Chief of Staff is to be appointed to General Mark Clark's Headquarters. He also tells us that any reference there may be—
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE. MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am loath to interrupt the noble Viscount but he is making a speech, not putting a question. The noble Viscount is not entitled to make a speech.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Marquess is, of course, quite right. I apologise to the House. I was led away by the fact that I have not long been a member of this House. May I ask the noble Earl whether, if there is any difference of opinion about a prospective operation, the Commonwealth Deputy Chief of Staff will refer that matter to the military Chiefs of Staff in Washington, or will he refer it directly to Her Majesty's Government?
  EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: The Deputy Chief of Staff will be the same as any other Deputy Chief of Staff working for a Commander-in-Chief. His loyalties are to that Commander-in-Chief. He would not, of course, refer any matter outside his Headquarters without the consent of his Commander-in-Chief. But the noble Viscount must not imagine that the liaison and contacts between ourselves and the Americans have broken down. The place where the contacts are is Washington, where we have a joint mission which is in constant contact with the Pentagon; and any questions of policy as regards operations in Korea are, of course, settled at the highest level. To go back for a moment to the Deputy Chief of Staff, although he is a British-born officer he will be one of General Mark Clark's Chiefs of Staff and will be entirely responsible to his Commander-in-Chief. I hope that that makes the position clear.
  VISCOUNT EUBANK: I thank the noble Earl.

  TRADING IN LEAD
  2.53 p.m.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT SWINTON):
  My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a statement about lead. I am glad to be able to inform the House that the Government have decided that private trading in lead can be restored as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made by the Ministry of Materials and the trade. Discussions with the trade will take place at once, and it is hoped that it will be possible to give effect to the decision on October 1. A further announcement about the date will be made as soon as possible. From the date of reversion the private import of virgin lead will be permitted and the London Metal Exchange will reopen for transactions in lead. The Ministry of Materials will cease to trade in lead, except to the extent necessary to wind up its trading operations.
  In reaching this decision the Government have taken account of the improvement in lead supplies, the importance for the export trade of enabling United Kingdom consumers to buy at fully competitive prices, and the advantages to the balance of payments and the position of sterling from the earnings which will arise directly and indirectly from reopening an international lead market in London. I should like to take the opportunity of acknowledging the understanding cooperation which we have had from the lead producers, particularly those in Australia and Canada, throughout the whole period of public trading during and since the war.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that the lead position is better. Will the noble Viscount realise that if he can do anything to increase still further the supplies of lead by developing the mines of Cornwall, where, I believe there is a great potentiality, he will receive the fullest support of this side of the House?
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am grateful for what the noble and learned Earl has said. At present, the supplies of lead in the world are ample. I am very appreciative of the importance of the Cornish lead mines and have my own ideas about them. I have had the pleasure of visiting those mines and of having discussions
  304
  with a number of people engaged in their operation. Actually, I think, tin and lead largely go together, and though the lead price has fallen a great deal recently the tin price is still very profitable for the Cornish mines. But I am, as I say, grateful for the noble and learned Earl's assurance.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL
  Brought from the Commons, endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.
  COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  PRISON BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with an Amendment: the said Amendment to be printed.
  ABERDEEN EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered on Report (according to Order).

  DEFAMATION BILL
  2.57 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]
  Clause 1:
  Broadcast Statements
  1. 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.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, to delete all words after "slander" to the end of the clause, and to insert:
  "words spoken and published after the passing of this Act shall not require special damage to render them actionable provided always that in any action for words spoken and made

  305
  actionable by this Act a plaintiff shall not recover more costs than damages unless the judge otherwise orders."
  The noble Earl said: I rise to move the first Amendment in my name. I do not wish to discuss it at great length. I merely wish to put the matter as simply as possible before your Lordships, because I quite realise that this is a controversial point.
  I have been for many years of opinion that the time has come to abolish the distinction between libel and slander. I told your Lordships on the last occasion that I had been fortunate enough to have been trained in the law by Sir William Holdsworth, and that was his view and the view of many great thinkers on the law. We often talk about the academic lawyers. Some of my colleagues who practise in the Law Courts are apt to feel that they have a chance to get their own back, because academic lawyers always criticise us, and now we have a chance of criticising the academic lawyers. But it is not only the academic lawyers I would cite. I would cite also the Report of the Select Committee of 1843, when many great lawyers such as Lyndhurst, Brougham, Cottenham, Campbell and a large group of them took this view. In spite of that, very little has been done. I was surprised to see that the Lord Chancellor thought that the case against this Amendment was overwhelming, but I cannot think it is overwhelming, unless you are to assert that all these very eminent men were completely and absolutely in the wrong; and I should hesitate to do that. But there it is: that has been the law on the question, and the question is whether it should continue or not.
  May I put the matter in this simple way, for the benefit of noble Lords who are not lawyers? Let us assume that you make a defamatory statement in a letter to a friend, mark it "Private and confidential," and send it to your friend. It goes to one person. The law has been that if that comes to the ears of the man who is defamed, he can, undoubtedly, bring his action and recover damages. If, on the other hand, you make a statement in what used to be called the Free Trade Hall, Manchester, or in a broadcast, or at the Albert Hall, if you make a statement to a vast gathering but you do not submit it to writing, that cannot be the
  306
  subject of an action—subject to certain exceptions—unless the person defamed can prove that he has sustained some pecuniary damage.
  For instance, you may say of a man: "Poor old fellow, he has given way to drink." Unless the man can prove that he has sustained some pecuniary damage, he cannot bring an action. You may say of a man: "He goes over to Ostend every week, with a new wife every time." He cannot bring an action—subject to the exceptions. If you accuse a man of a crime and bring yourself within the exceptions, then he can bring an action; or, if he can show that the words are spoken of him in the way of his business, then he can bring an action. But to say of a man: "He has taken to drugs," is not actionable. May I give your Lordships an illustration which came to my notice not very long ago, about a certain lady of some position? It was said at many a dinner table to which I went that she had changed her sex. I expect many of your Lordships heard the rumour. Probably, there was not a vestige of truth in it. I can imagine absolutely nothing more distressing or annoying to that lady, but she could bring no action unless she could prove—and she obviously could not—that she had actually sustained some pecuniary damage. It seems to me that this is a monstrous thing.
  Should it be altered? So far as I know—I speak subject to correction—there is one argument, and one argument only, which has been advanced against this proposition. I think this is the only argument, but the Lord Chancellor found this argument overwhelming. The argument is this: that if you allowed people to bring actions for slander (that is, spoken words) without proving special damage, you might have the courts cluttered up with a very large number of comparatively trumpery actions. That is why the great majority of Lord Porter's Commission came to the conclusion that it would be wrong to assimilate the law of libel with the law of slander. Is that true? I referred to this point on the Second Reading, but I refer to it again very briefly. There was introduced into this House in the year 1891 a Bill to enable a woman, where words were spoken against her chastity, to bring an action

  307
  without proof of special damage. Lord Macnaghten moved the Bill, Lord Selborne and Lord Bramwell were amongst those who supported it, but Lord Halsbury was very hesitant about it, because he raised this argument. He said: "If you do pass this Bill, there will be a large number of trumpery actions." But the Bill was passed and they put into the Bill a clause which I reproduce in this Amendment of mine—my Amendment is borrowed straight from that Act—to this effect: that you are not to recover in such an action more costs than you do damages.
  I expect any of my colleagues who has had experience in the courts will agree with me that although there have been actions under the Slander of Women Act, yet they have been surprisingly few. I do not recall ever having myself been concerned in an action under the Slander of Women Act. Possibly people are induced not to bring actions by reason of the fact that actions of this sort can be brought only in the High Court, and they are rather expensive. You cannot get legal aid, or anything of that sort, to bring them and, of course, you always run the risk of having to pay your own costs. If you are awarded only £5 damages, then you can get only £5 costs. I have reproduced that clause here in the belief—I cannot, of course, give any guarantee—that trumpery actions will not be brought. In the discussions in 1891, Lord Bramwell said: "The only way you can guarantee that there will not be actions brought is by not giving a right of action." But are we not to give right of action in a proper case because of the risk that trumpery actions may be brought? A slander may be widely repeated, made to a large audience, and it may do very great harm—far more harm than can be done by a libel, which is written in a single letter. I maintain that it is right and proper that actions for slander should be brought without the necessity of proving special damage.
  That has always been the law in Scotland and, so far as I know—I speak as a child in this matter—there are not a large number of slander actions brought in Scotland. It is the law now in two States of Australia, as I said the other day, and I hold in my hand a letter from the President of the Law Council of
  308
  Australia, in which he explains the law there. He says that in Queensland and in New South Wales, where slander and libel are the same, so far as he can see the number of actions is not larger than in Victoria and the other States where they are not the same. It is the fact that there also they have a provision similar to that which I am proposing to-day. Indeed, they go rather further, because he summarises Section 5 of the Defamation Act, 1912, in this way. He says that it:
  "provides, in effect, that on the trial of any action for defamatory words which do not impute the commission of an indictable offence, if the jury are of opinion that the words were spoken on an occasion when the plaintiff's character is not likely to be injured thereby, then the jury may find a verdict for the defendant."
  Some provision of that sort would be perfectly satisfactory to me.
  I quite understand what is said. It is said that you do not want to interfere with what a judge once called the "tittle-tattle of the tea-table at Tooting." I quite understand that, but is there really any risk of that happening, if there is a provision that a plaintiff is not to recover more costs than damages? Otherwise, there will be, inevitably, very great hardship. I told your Lordships the other day of a case which came to my notice when I was at the Bar, which concerned the headmaster of one of our great public schools who had to resign because of ill health. He got much better. He came back on a visit to the old town about a year afterwards. He was hoping to get some other job as headmaster and he heard a rumour—in fact it was going all over the place—that he had behaved badly and committed adultery with some woman in the town, and that that was the real reason why the council had got rid of him. There was no vestige of truth in the story, but, believe it or not, I had to tell him: "Well, assuming that you manage to prove it, assuming that you prove that these things are said—and I assume that they are wholly untrue—there is nothing you can do about it. It is slander but you cannot prove special damage. There you are." I think that is wrong. In a case of that sort a man ought to be able to go before a jury, in a proper case, and get himself cleared.
  I am proud to think that, though the argument to the contrary may be overwhelming, I have at my side in this

  309
  matter that galaxy of talent in this House of a hundred years ago. I am proud to think also that I am proposing to make our law comparable to the law of Scotland and to the law of those two States in Australia that I have mentioned. Although, of course, there is a risk that more cases may be brought—as, indeed, there is wherever you give a cause of action—experience has shown that the fears which were felt in 1891 when the Slander of Women Act was introduced have not materialised. Now, in this country, we regard both sexes as equal, and I cannot see why it should be actionable per se to make imputations against the chastity of a woman and not actionable per se to make imputations against the morals of a man. I gather that this view does not generally find favour, but I thought it my duty to raise the point because I, at any rate, believe that the time has come when these two systems ought to be on the same footing. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 5, leave out from ("slander") to end of line 7, and insert the said new words.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  3.12 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, made a speech of much persuasiveness on the Second Reading raising this point, and to-day, as is natural and proper, he has again presented with his usual skill, and I am sure with the greatest sincerity, many of the same considerations. I certainly do not take the view that the argument in this matter is all on the one side. One could not possibly say that when one considers that there is considerable academic opinion at the present time in favour of this change, and in view of the fact that there are other countries under the British Flag where, I understand, there has been a change in the law, to a greater or less degree, in the direction which the noble and learned Earl so earnestly recommends to the House. But just as I am very willing to accept the view that the case for resisting the noble Earl's Amendment is not overwhelming, so I do not think it reasonable that the view should be taken that the argument is practically and considerably the other way. The real truth is that, in framing statutory provisions about the law of defamation, we have to choose the sensible way between two principles, each of which is greatly
  310
  to be admired but both of which run into some conflict.
  On the one hand, it is extremely important that we should have a law which enables people who are damaged by slanderous and untrue statements to have some protection and remedy from the courts. The noble Earl has, with his usual skill, indicated some cases of that kind. But there is another principle commonly known as the principle of free speech. We live in a community in which there is carried on a good deal of verbal horseplay, a good deal of gossipy observations about third persons, sometimes humorous, sometimes sarcastic, sometimes prejudiced, sometimes exaggerated, but which, none the less, ought not to be strictly restrained, because, if it were, we should lose a most priceless element in our society. It is better for us to accept. the fact that people may say what they like; but there are cases where what they proclaim of third parties does so much damage that the law must provide some remedy to prevent it. But it is really not imaginary to say that if we made this change we should expose ourselves to all sorts of claims which could then be made in courts of law but which cannot be made now. I hope that I shall not be thought to be wasting time or acting lightheartedly if I remind your Lordships of one of the passages at the very beginning of Pickwick Papers.
  Mr. Pickwick was at a meeting at the Pickwick Club and controversy arose over some very small matter. In the course of this controversy people in the club became very heated, and Mr. Blotton of Aldgate was pleased to say about Mr. Pickwick, "Sir, you are a humbug." Thereupon there began a most tremendous altercation which was only appeased in the end by Mr. Blotton's explanation that the word "humbug" had been used only in a Pickwickian sense. There is not the slightest doubt that if this change in the law were made, Mr. Pickwick would he entitled to bring an action against Mr. Blotton. He would be entitled to say, "You have slandered me and I am entitled to damages without proving special damage." Even though Mr. Blotton explained, with the support of the Chairman, that he had used the word only in a Pickwickian sense, it would remain for a jury at the trial to decide whether or not that was in the circumstances the meaning of "humbug,"

  311
  and whether it was not understood to be defamatory. There would be thousands of such actions brought, not only by men but by women. Every woman who conceived herself to be reflected upon unfairly at a whist drive by some other person taking part in the evening's entertainment would, by virtue of an Amendment like this, be at liberty to bring an action.
  My noble friend said just now that something of the sort which he recommended had already been provided for in some Australian States. He has much more information about this matter than I have, but I am informed that in those States there is an express provision in their law which does not allow frivolous actions to be brought. How you define a "frivolous action" I have not the slightest idea. At any rate, such a thing might easily happen, and it is clearly very undesirable. It is not only undesirable because it is not a proper way to use the courts of law but also because, in the circumstances, it does considerable injustice to the defendant. It is all very well to say that the plaintiff will not be allowed to get more costs than damages, but what about the defendant? Even if the defendant succeeds in such cases, he will not get from the plaintiff the full amount of his expenses. There is a risk, in the opinion of many people, that this would be a most undesirable extension of the law.
  I agree that there are possible hard cases such as those which my noble friend has mentioned. But what we have to do is to lay down a rule and to decide on the whole which is the better rule to lay down. When it is asked: "What is there to be said against this? "I can shorten what I have to say—and gain, I think, considerable support—by quoting remarks to your Lordships which proceeded from the Porter Committee on this subject. They said, after admitting, of course, that the distinction between libel and slander in these cases is not entirely logical, that none the less
  "The present exception to the general rule that actions for slander to be successful require proof of special damages has, indeed, no logical basis or principle on which to rest, but it exists and forms a not unsatisfactory compromise which gives adequate protection in the common run of cases, whilst avoiding the encouragement of trivial complaints. As a working rule it is not amiss."
  312
  I must confess that I am impressed that view, and noble Lords will remember that on Second Reading the noble and learned Lords, Lord Porter and Lord Tucker, and the Lord Chancellor, expressed the view that that was the better attitude to take.
  There is one further circumstance. This is a Bill which has reached your Lordships' House from another place, where it was fully discussed over many days in Committee, and afterwards on Report, and it comes here with the recommendation that, broadly, it follows the Porter Report. As I have just observed, that Report is directly opposed to the Amendment now suggested. I think it would be a serious thing, in dealing with a Private Member's Bill at this time in the Session, if we were to send the Bill back with this very material change in it. That would give an opportunity for prolonged discussion in another place, at some risk to the prospects of the Bill reaching the Statute Book, as the noble and learned Earl and the rest of us all hope it will.
  The real truth is that verbal horseplay is a characteristic of the life of the British people, and I hope that it will remain a characteristic of our life. There is such a thing as being too squeamish about observations, though they may be slanderous, made about oneself to other persons. Whilst I agree that there is academic authority for this change, I hope that, without presumption, I may submit to the House that the sensible view to take is not to endeavour to change the law in this particular. In saying so, I know that I have the support of some who have had the greatest practical experience of conducting actions of this class of case in the courts, and I imagine that noble Lords would be greatly moved by the views expressed, which may be expressed again, by the noble Lords, Lord Tucker and Lord Porter, and by others.
  I say nothing about the reference to Scotland. There is present this afternoon a noble and learned Lord much better qualified than I am to speak about that aspect. But I would point out that I do not think it follows, because the law of Scotland is slightly different, that in this Bill we should proceed to adopt the law of Scotland—not in the least because I have not the greatest respect for the

  313
  Scottish system of law, but because I feel it is not desirable to make this sort of change in English law, change which is necessarily made publicly known, if it is calculated to encourage frivolous actions. If it had always been our law, it would not have mattered so much, but to change the law now because of certain hard and difficult cases would be a mistake. I am anxious that we should get on with the Committee stage and I hope that I have not spoken at too great length, but these are the reasons why I suggest we should not accept this Amendment. I hope that my noble friend Earl Jowitt will feel that I have spoken in a reasonable spirit. I do not at all denounce his view, which he obviously holds with great sincerity. But this is not a case of a view which may be reasonably held; it is a question of balance and of keeping the law as it is, so far as we can, without placing additional difficulties in the way of this Bill going through its final stages and so reaching the Statute Book. For these reasons I must resist the Amendment.
  LORD SILKIN: I have listened to two speeches from two eminent lawyers, both with completely conflicting views, and I am bound to say that I feel the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has not made out his case in opposition to this Amendment. I recognise that there are two conflicting principles at stake; one, that for every wrong there ought to be a remedy, and the other, that we ought not to encourage vexatious and frivolous actions. I should say that the view that for every wrong there must he a remedy ought to predominate and I do not accept the noble Viscount's assumption that the vast majority of cases of slander would be vexatious and frivolous. My noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt has given examples of cases where grievous wrong can be done to an individual, as the result of slander, without there being any remedy at all, and I should halve thought there ought to be a much stronger case for resisting the amending of the law to provide a remedy in these cases than has been given.
  On Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tucker, referred to the fact that he was the only member of your Lordships' House who had actually tried these cases. I am the only member who has spoken on Second Reading
  314
  and to-day, who has actually had to advise clients on these matters over a long period of years, and I assure the Committee that the number of these cases is very small. There is a natural limitation of the number of cases that reach the courts. A slander action is a fairly expensive proposition, and there is no opportunity of getting assistance from the State to fight it. If a person felt himself injured by a verbal statement, the first thing he would do would be to consult a solicitor, who at once would advise him that if lie lost his action he would be involved in several hundreds of pounds of costs. Moreover, if he won and got small damages, he would get no more costs than the amount of damages, if this amendment were accepted, and would have to bear the burden himself. That is a salutory deterrent to the commencement of actions.
  The noble and learned Viscount referred to the importance of freedom of speech. Of course it is desirable that people should be able to speak freely about one another, within reason. There should be legitimate criticism. There should even be permitted a certain amount of what the noble Viscount called "verbal horseplay," and a limited amount of abuse; but we are not concerned in this Amendment with that type of case. We are concerned with untrue statements that are calculated to damage the character and injure the person about whom the statements are made. If we are to regard any restraint on statements of that kind as a limitation of freedom of speech, I cannot see a difference in principle between that kind of limitation and limitation of freedom of statement in writing. Every argument which the noble Viscount put forward objecting to this Amendment on the ground that it would limit freedom of speech would apply equally to libel actions. They constitute a limitation of the right to say what one likes in writing.
  The noble Viscount made play with the word "humbug" in a Pickwickian sense, but even under present law it is possible to apply for the dismissal of an action on the grounds that it is frivolous and vexatious. If anybody ventured to bring a slander action on the ground that he had been called a "humbug," or some other normal term of abuse, there is no reason at all why a leaned judge should

  315
  not dismiss such an action, or even the Master in Chambers, on the ground that it was vexatious and frivolous.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I do not think my noble friend, with his knowledge of this subject, and his experience, will say that, in practice, it is possible to get an action dismissed at an early stage because it is frivolous and vexatious.
  LORD SILKIN: I do suggest that. I admit that the number of such cases is very small. I readily admit that a judge would not freely dismiss an action at an early stage on that ground; but I have known it happen in the course of my career, and I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount has also known it happen.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: No, I have not.
  LORD SILKIN: Then I have the advantage of the noble and learned Viscount in that respect. I have myself, on application on behalf of a client, had an action dismissed which was obviously vexatious. But those cases are rare, and I do not make too much of that point.
  The fact is that, if we have to choose between the risk, on the one hand, of having a certain number of unnecessary actions in the courts, and, on the other, of a continuance of a wrong—the continuance of a situation in which people have the most cruel and heartless things said about them, without a remedy—then I would rather take the first risk. I would risk opening the door to such people who have been injured, and giving them the opportunity of having their cases heard and their characters vindicated; of allowing a certain number of possibly unnecessary and frivolous actions going to the courts. As I have said, I think there are effective restraints against many of them—one of which is the fact of people having to bear the costs of these frivolous actions themselves. I hope that this amendment of the law—which even Lord Porter's Committee recognised as being a logical one, but which for other reasons they thought it right to reject—will be agreed to by this Committee.
  LORD PORTER: I should like to put a proposition to the noble Lord who has just spoken, who said that he had known of the dismissal of a case in limine as being frivolous and vexatious. All I
  316
  would say is: Was that a libel or a slander case? I have never known such a case dismissed in limine. I do not believe that it could be. That is all I have to say on that matter. The noble and learned Earl who opened the discussion against this Amendment rather suggested that we had not sufficient belief in the views of the academic lawyers. That is not true, so far as I am concerned. I have the greatest possible respect for the academic lawyer and, what is more, I think that a body like ours, which has the final decision in matters, is all the better for having those who can criticise the situation, so that we know where we stand. But it does not follow that they are always right when it comes to practical questions, as opposed to our views, when those views are the matters under discussion. This question we are dealing with now is really a practical one: Would the adoption of this Amendment do more good or more harm? As the noble Lord who has just sat down said, as a logical matter we might well say: "Why not put libel and slander in the same category?" The answer is that, in our view, it would tend to make for frivolous actions. It is all very well to say that the protection lies in the costs which have been incurred. But one of the reasons for this Bill is what has been known as the "gold-digging" action in cases of libel. There, though in fact the "gold-digger" faces the fact that he will have to pay the costs if he fails, nevertheless, as a rule, he is a man (or a woman) of no means whatever, to whom it does not matter two straws whether he (or she) wins or loses the case. One thing we are afraid of is that, if we throw open the courts to actions of slander without special damage, there may be an extension of these claims.
  There is then a third proposition. When you have your words written out, anyone can say: "There are the words. What do they mean?"—subject, of course, to a court deciding what may be the innuendo you place upon the words. Anyone who has tried cases—accident cases, depending on people's recollection and that kind of thing—knows that you cannot trust the human memory; nor can you trust human observation. You find people saying: "He said this or that about A B," jumping to conclusions, and thinking that things have been said which

  317
  in fact have never been said. That is another risk which you run if you throw open the courts to this class of case.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: It may be six years afterwards.
  LORD PORTER: My noble and learned friend reminds me that in cases of libel you are confined to two years, but that, owing to some misapprehension in the body that recommended it, in cases of slander the limit is not until six years after the alleged slander is uttered.
  There are two further matters with which I want to deal. One is this. There has been a good deal of reference to the slander of women. That is an entirely different matter, as I present it to your Lordships. No woman is going to bring an action, with all the scandal involved, unless it is essential. It is not like the case where some petty tittle-tattle has been spoken about her. A woman will not bring an action, knowing that it is likely to be said, "There is no smoke without fire," or something of that kind. That being so, you cannot get any real knowledge from the Slander of Women Act, when you relate it to matters of ordinary tittle-tattle or ordinary conversation. The other thing I want to say is this—and it does not come in here quite so much as it does later. We have put in the Bill a protection for people of whom slander is spoken which will affect them in their business, whether it is spoken of them in the way of their business, or not: if it disparages them in their business, they are protected under the Bill. That does away with a great deal of the criticism the noble and learned Earl made, though not the whole of it. On those grounds, I suggest to your Lordships that the Bill is right and that the criticisms are wrong, even though it may be that you leave some wrongs unrighted.
  3.39 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I came down to the House this afternoon convinced that it would be very much for the protection of the individual if this Amendment went into the Bill. In listening to the speeches, I have been impressed by the great weight of those made by noble and learned Lords against the Amendment. But what really impresses me is the fact that this Amendment is, and apparently has been for some time, the law of Scotland, without there having
  318
  been a large number of frivolous and vexatious actions such As noble Lords apparently fear. With all due respect to the people of Scotland, surely they are not less frivolous or vexatious than the rest of the people of Britain. If it works so well in Scotland, why should it not work here? We have, of course, within the British Commonwealth a great many different sets of law, and some of them differ slightly from others. In many cases the difference adds considerably to the protection or liberties of the people of that particular part of the Commonwealth. Surely we ought to look around our various bodies of law and see where it has been proved possible to add fresh liberties or fresh protection to our people and, where such a proposition in the law has proved successful, to adopt it throughout our other bodies of law. If it works well in Scotland, why on earth should it not work well here?
  LORD SALTOUN: I think I can answer the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids. It is, I believe, for this reason. Long before you had legal aid in England, we had in Scotland what amounted practically to legal aid, and I have known few people so poor that they had not an agent or a man of business. Those are the people who are most ready to take slander actions. I do not believe I have ever met any solicitor or agent in Scotland who would willingly undertake an action for slander, and I think we owe it to the legal profession in Scotland that there are so few actions. I speak humbly in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Normand, but I do know something about the life of the people in Scotland and I think that that is probably one of the most important reasons.
  LORD NORMAND: A good deal has been said about the law of Scotland, and I have been concerned with the practice or the administration of the law in Scotland for more than forty years. It is perfectly true that for centuries the law of Scotland has made no difference between libel and slander. It is also true that for hundreds of years there have been far fewer actions for defamation in Scotland, relatively to numbers, than there have been in England. Therefore it is argued that there need be no fear of assimilating in England the law of slander to the law of libel—no fear, that is, that

  319
  any material increase in the number of actions will result. I think the argument is fallacious. One reason, and perhaps the greatest reason, why there are so few slander and defamation actions in Scotland is the Scottish jury. Since I came to England I have learned the phrase "a gold-digger's action." I can assure noble Lords that anybody who seeks to "dig gold" using a Scottish jury as a spade is wasting his time, and that one great check upon the number of actions, and particularly trivial actions, is just the reluctance of Scottish juries to award unreasonable damages. One other important thing is the reluctance of Scottish juries to look with favour on far-fetched innuendoes. These two things together have, in modern times—at least since the introduction of the jury trial of civil actions in Scotland, 120 years ago—prevented any large number of defamation actions.
  I am sure it is fallacious to think that you can argue from what has happened in Scotland to what may happen in England. In answer to one noble Lord who has spoken, I should like to say that there can be no greater fallacy than to look round England and Scotland and find what parts of the law have worked well in either country and then to try and make an amalgam with both. The one certain way of ruining two good systems of law would be to try and make a patchwork out of those parts of the law which have worked well in Scotland and those which have worked well in England. I know that there are many parts of the law of England which have worked well enough here which would be most unacceptable to the people of Scotland, and I am quite prepared to believe that there may be parts of the law of Scotland which have worked well enough there but which would be unacceptable to the people of England. After all, laws are made for people, and it is important that we should remember that, when we are discussing a matter which may touch the intimate life of members of the public in the way in which the law of defamation—especially defamation by spoken words—may do. I do not rise in order to press upon noble Lords a decision in either sense. I should not take part in a Division. I am not an Englishman, and I have no desire to use any influence at all upon the decision of this particular
  320
  Amendment, but I do wish to correct some misconceptions about the law of Scotland. One thing I should like to say is that the people of Scotland are at least as defamatory in their language about one another as are the people of England.
  LORD TUCKER: I ventured to address your Lordships on the Second Reading of this Bill only on the ground that I have had experience of trying libel and slander actions. On that occasion I referred to the fact that the noble and learned Earl had cited the opinions of academic lawyers in support of his case on this point. In his observations to-day he rather gave the impression that I, or perhaps others, had spoken on this subject with a view to "getting our own back" on the academic lawyers. I can assure your Lordships that that was not my object, nor have academic lawyers anything of mine that I desire to get back. What I was endeavouring to put before your Lordships was the view that judges are sometimes entitled to be heard on these matters. They are seldom heard on any matters to do with the law, because it is not fitting that they should make public comments with regard to the law. It is only when they get to your Lordships' House that they have an opportunity of being heard on this subject.
  For better or for worse, my considered view is—despite what may have been said by my distinguished predecessors in the year 1846, and despite what may have happened in the year 1891—that it would be a retrograde movement to introduce this very considerable change in our law, a change which, whatever view you take of it, may vitally affect every man in his everyday life, because few of us, I suspect, pass many days without at some time or another saying something which is defamatory of somebody. This Amendment would introduce a very considerable change in the law of the land, and I believe it would be a change which might tend to produce a number of actions the entertaining of which would be a waste of the time of the courts.
  I do not think that the suggested provision with regard to costs and damages would be any great safeguard in that respect, and for this reason. Of course, if the plaintiff gets only a farthing

  321
  damages, or only £5 damages, well and good. Even then, as has been pointed out, the defendant has his own costs to bear. But take the case—and at present there are many instances of it—where a plaintiff in an action which the judge may consider frivolous and one which should never have been brought, gets £50 or £75 damages. He will, under this proposal, get £75 costs, as well as £75 damages. I think that would be wrong, and I do not consider that this proposal would be much of a safeguard. I rise merely to tender my evidence on that point, and I would support the noble and learned Viscount's opposition.
  LORD OAKSEY: I rise for a moment only for the same purpose as that which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tucker, has just expressed. I do not think that there are any other arguments which need be advanced in favour of opposition to the Amendment. I have had the honour of being a Queen's Bench Judge for twelve years and, of course, have had to try a certain number of these cases. I wish, as Lord Tucker has done, to give evidence that I am in favour of opposing the Amendment.
  3.50 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): I rise for a moment to say something on the language which I used on the last occasion and which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has criticised. When I said that the case was, as I thought, overwhelming against the change which he advocated, I by no means intended to belittle the cogency of the argument which he put forward. What I intended was this. What is proposed by this Amendment represents a great change in the law, affecting us all, possibly, in our daily lives—though I should hesitate to go so far as my noble and learned friend and suggest that something defamatory about somebody is said nearly every day by most of us. But it is a great change in the law as it has subsisted for these many centuries, a change which might, indeed, have been made in the year 1891, when a change certainly was made—a change for which I believe there is no popular demand whatsoever and a change which was carefully considered by the Committee over which my noble friend presided; and a change to which nine out of eleven of the Committee were opposed.
  322
  It was in those circumstances that I thought—and I venture still to think—there is an overwhelming case against such a change, for on this Committee there was not only my noble friend who has spoken, and who, as a Judge in the Queen's Bench Division, has had a wide experience of cases of libel, but also Lord Justice Birkett, as he now is, Sir Valentine Holmes, and Mr. Justice Slade, as he has now become. All these men had the widest experience of this branch of the law and they were all against the change. I venture to say that in these circumstances there is an overwhelming case against the change, though I hope the noble and learned Earl will not think that I used the expression on the last occasion in any way as derogatory of his argument.
  It has not, I think, been sufficiently brought out that there is a great contrast between words spoken and words written. Where words are written there is no doubt about the words used; as the old saying has it litera scripta manet. Moreover, when a man takes up pen and paper the hand directs the pen, and the brain directs the hand: it is a deliberate act in which he sets out to say something which will be libellous. There is no such deliberate act about slander. Although there may be slanderers who are vicious, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the slander is a spontaneous, impetuous observation, calling someone something which he should not be called, and that is the case which is so easily brought before the courts. It seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin referred to some hard cases, and such hard cases would make bad law. So it is that, for my part, although this is not a Government Bill, I do speak as a member of Her Majesty's Government; and I say that certainly I could not recommend anybody to vote for this change in the law. Therefore, with all respect to the cogency of the noble Earl's argument, I must resist his Amendment.
  EARL JOWITT: We have had a very good discussion on this Amendment and I should not dream of dividing the House. But I would just make a couple of observations. First with regard to the judges. We all welcome them and we wish that we could have their "evidence" more often. At the present

  323
  moment you cannot bring an action for slander unless you can prove special damage. All the cases they have ever heard, therefore, have been actions where it has been alleged that there had been special damage or that the case came in one of the exceptions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Tucker, told us on the last occasion that he had tried frivolous actions and that there would be an increase in the number of actions if we altered the law. That must remain in the region of opinion. Personally I do not think there would be. However, people take different views on this matter, and the majority of noble Lords who have spoken have been against me on that.
  I very much hope that we shall not be guided in our decision by what the noble and learned Viscount has said, to the effect that this is a Private Member's Bill and that we ought to get it through as quickly as possible. This is expressly the sort of Bill which this House ought to scrutinise carefully, to amend and to examine. It makes changes in the law, changes which will remain constant for the next fifty years or so. I suggest that just because there may be difficulty about getting the Bill through on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, or whenever it may be, we ought not to pass the Bill unaltered if we know it to be wrong. I hope that we shall go through it carefully, whatever the consequences may be, and if it is not possible for the Bill to pass before the end of the Session then let the Government take it up next Session and give it priority. Therefore, I shall not be moved by the considerations which the noble and learned Viscount mentioned. I shall be moved only by the evidence. Although I think the arguments are overwhelming, the difficulty about saying that arguments are overwhelming is that it sometimes means that you have not appreciated the force of the arguments on the other side; it should mean that after weighing both sides you think one thing or the other is right. It seems that, on balance of convenience, this Amendment should not be made, but I have done my duty. When, in fifty years' time, those who have to consider these matters look back and wonder why we did not make a proper job of it at this time, I at any rate shall
  324
  be on the safe side. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): With your Lordships' permission I desire to interrupt the Committee stage to make a statement on Egypt similar to one that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

  EGYPT
  4.0 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, your Lordships will have heard the news of the abdication of King Farouk on Saturday evening. His infant son has been proclaimed King in his place and it has been decided to set up a Council of Regency. At present the Royal powers are vested in the Egyptian Government and Aly Maher Pasha, who was appointed Prime Minister before the abdication. I am sure the House will not expect me to comment upon the internal affairs of Egypt; still less to speculate upon the course of future developments. But I should like to take this opportunity to stress our interest—and I am sure the interest of all free nations—that a stable and orderly Administration should emerge from the present crisis.
  The latest information from Egypt indicates that there have been no disturbances and no threat to foreign lives or interests. Nevertheless, in view of the unsettled conditions which inevitably result from events such as have recently taken place in Egypt, we have thought it right to authorise certain movements of British forces as a precautionary measure. Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires in Alexandria has, on my right honourable friend's instructions, made it clear to the Egyptian Prime Minister that Her Majesty's Government have no wish to intervene in the internal affairs of Egypt these military movements being solely related to possible danger to British lives. In the existing circumstances, my right

  325
  honourable friend also thought it right that Her Majesty's Ambassador should return to his post. Sir Ralph Stevenson is now on his way to Cairo.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may I just ask one question—I will not press it if it is inconvenient for the noble Marquess to answer it now? I gather from an announcement in the Press this morning that the new Sovereign, the small child, has assumed the title of King of the Sudan. In those circumstances, to whom is our Ambassador to be accredited? Is the noble Marquess in a position to tell me whether that point has been considered? He may wish to consider the matter before he gives an answer. Of course, there is on the face of the matter an obvious difficulty which may, or may not, have been considered.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I do not think the learned Earl will misunderstand if I say that I should prefer not to follow up what I have already said.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may we take it that a further statement will be made before the House rises, because things may move very swiftly? We have a Minister who is interested in this matter. For example, a question I should like the noble Marquess to consider afterwards is whether Parliament is to be summoned. And is it true that Nahas Pasha has returned? These are questions which affect the course of negotiations. Are negotiations to be resumed? All these matters may come to a crisis and, therefore, when the noble Marquess has had an opportunity of reviewing the situation—including the important point made by my noble friend Lord Jowitt—will the noble Marquess make a statement before the House adjourns?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: The situation is, of course, at the present moment in a somewhat fluid condition. If events of importance happen before the House goes into Recess I am sure that my right honourable friend will desire to acquaint another place with the situation, and I, equally, should follow the precedent of making a similar statement here.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May we take it that the point raised by the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition, as to whom Her Majesty's representative is to be accredited, is at this
  326
  moment under consideration by Her Majesty's Government?
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: And will Sir Ralph Stevenson have diplomatic status when he arrives at Cairo?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: Obviously neither of the noble Lords who asked those two questions could expect that they would get an answer. The situation is being closely considered. Having regard to the position, I do not think that anyone would consider us as being particularly reticent if we did not make a further statement at this stage.

  DEFAMATION BILL
  4.6 p.m.
  House again in Committee on Clause 1.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved after "telegraphy" to insert "or by any artificial means of whatsoever nature." The noble and learned Earl said: I desire to extend the definition to include a case of this sort. Some reference has been made to what I would call the "garden wall case." where words slip out without one really thinking what one is talking about. But I think we ought to provide for the elaborate occasion, where a set speech is being made and you have hired a hall and you cannot get all the people in who want to go, and so you wire it up to the next hall. I think you technically do it by means of a telephone and a microphone, so that everyone in all the halls can hear the speech. We all know cases of that sort of thing. Or, if you like, in one hall—the Albert Hall—where the human voice cannot reach without amplifiers or something of that sort. I think you ought to provide for words which come through amplified in that way; that they ought to be treated as you are going to treat broadcasting. At the present moment, of course, broadcast words are treated as slander. This Bill quite rightly treats them as libel and in that category ought to come the sort of words I have mentioned. I am not in the least happy with the words of my Amendment. It may be that a much better form of words can be devised. But on the principle I shall be perfectly content if the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will tell me that he will look at it between now and the next stage to

  327
  see if he can find a better form of words. But that is what I have in mind. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 6, after ("telegraphy") insert ("or by any artificial means of whatsoever nature.")—(Earl Jowitt.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I will, of course, do what the noble Earl suggests and study the Report of what he has just said. I should add that, having considered it as far as I can, I hope the Committee will not make this Amendment—and, without delaying the House unduly, I will mention just two considerations. First, it is necessary to read with Clause 1 and the Amendment now suggested the provisions which are to be found in Clause 16—namely, that
  "Any reference in this Act to words shall be construed as including reference to pictures, visual images, gestures and other methods of signifying meaning."
  I had no doubt that Lord Jowitt had that matter in mind. He now explains that that is really not what he is thinking about. He suggests that a difference should be made between the legal situation when a man gets up and makes a speech in a hall and the legal situation if he makes a speech with amplifiers. I am afraid I feel that it is not a good distinction, unless you say that a man with a loud voice must be considered as having perpetrated a libel and that a man who has not a loud voice only commits a slander.
  I do not think that is possible. I was in some doubt as to what my noble friend really had in mind by "artificial means." Does he mean skywriting? Would it be artificial means if you taught your parrot to utter a slander? Does he mean something written with the assistance of a planchet? None of these absurd illustrations was, of course, in my noble friend's mind. I will look into the matter, but I think the Bill will be better as it is. My attention is drawn to Clause 16, subsection (3). The words are:
  "In this Act 'broadcasting by means of wireless telegraphy' means publication for general reception by means of wireless telegraphy within the meaning of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, and 'broadcast by means of wireless telegraphy' shall be construed accordingly."
  I think those words were put in primarily for dealing with the sort of messages which go between Scotland Yard and police cars and similar messages.
  328
  But, be that as it may, of course I will gladly look at the noble and learned Earl's suggestion. I hope that, with that assurance, he will let us pass on.
  EARL JOWITT: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. I will certainly withdraw the Amendment in a moment, but I will point this out to him. You start with this assumption: that the distinction between libel and slander is not logical to-day. I quite agree that the acceptance of my Amendment would not produce a logical result. However, it is one thing to say that the casual remark that slips out, the ill-considered remark, should not be the subject of action, but it is a very different thing to say that the occasion of a set speech before a large audience, a speech which has been carefully considered beforehand, should not be considered actionable. The fact that you have all the paraphernalia of loudspeakers rather differentiates one from the other and puts the occasion more into what I may call the "set speech" variety and not the "garden wall" variety. If the noble and learned Viscount will look at the point and see if anything can be done on those lines, shall be most grateful. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  4.12 p.m.
  Clause 2:
  Slander affecting official, professional or business reputation
  2. In an action for slander in respect of words calculated to disparage the plaintiff in any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on by him at the time of the publication, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove special damage, whether or not the words are spoken of the plaintiff in the way of his office, profession, calling, trade or business.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, after "calculated" to insert:
  "to degrade the plaintiff in the estimation of the hearers or"
  The noble and learned Earl said: I can deal with this Amendment shortly because it covers a similar point. This is an Amendment which is designed to reproduce what I understand to be the American law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Porter, has done me the honour of reading what I said on the last

  329
  occasion when I referred to Gatley as my authority of what the American law is. Whether or not Gatley correctly states the American law I do not know, because I have made no researches, but he does state in substance what he says is the American law. If we had some words of this sort, which would indicate that the slander had to be a slander of a serious nature tending to degrade the plaintiff, I might be satisfied, and possibly some objections to the other method would be satisfied too. I do not intend to make another speech on this matter. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 8, after ("calculated") insert ("to degrade the plaintiff in the estimation of the hearers or").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  LORD PORTER: My noble and learned friend Lord Simon has asked me to deal with this matter. In the first place, I feel that the difficulty is one of draftsmanship. I do not know what the Amendment means. If I read it in its widest sense, it seems to go back to the question of making libel and slander equal, because, if read in that sense, what it says is that if you disparage a man at all, that shall be an actionable wrong, and if you disparage him in the case of his business, that shall be an actionable wrong. As the Amendment is drafted at present it really is an alternative to saying that libel and slander shall be on the same basis. I do net see how, having regard to the fact that the noble and learned Earl has withdrawn his other Amendment, he can proceed with this one as at present drafted.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I must say that my noble and learned friend who has just spoken expresses my feeling. I thought that the noble and learned Earl had put down this Amendment before we discussed the broad question, to have the effect of making all slander actionable per se, without even the safeguard contained in his first Amendment I rather thought that this Amendment would fall if the first Amendment was withdrawn. I do not see that the words are needed at all. It seems to be that the clause as it stands is right. Indeed, if there is any difference, I am not sure that it would necessarily be to the advantage of the plaintiff. However, I will gladly look at the matter.
  EARL JOWITT: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for that. I must admit I am not at all satisfied with the drafting, but I wanted to devise some form of words which would enable an action to be brought in respect of a really serious slander. To say that a fellow is drinking himself to death or is a drug fiend, or something of that sort, is a really serious matter which, obviously, would tend to degrade him. If that is not an appropriate word to use and the noble and learned Viscount can think of a more appropriate one, I shall be grateful. I am trying to have, not all slander actionable per se, but those slanders which do involve the serious degradation of a man's character, albeit not alleging a criminal offence. Consider how foolish the position is. If you say of a man that he habitually rides his bicycle on the footpath, I suppose that would be actionable per se because that is a criminal offence.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No.
  LORD PORTER: Not unless he could be sent to prison.
  EARL JOWITT: No; that may be an unhappy illustration. I mean, some quite trivial matter. I mean some matter which does not really affect the good name of the man. On the other hand if you say of a man that he is taking drugs or is drinking himself to death that is something which would really affect his good name, but he cannot bring an action. My Amendment is designed to try to get the serious type of slander actionable per se. I will withdraw the Amendment now, on the undertaking that the noble and learned Viscount will look at it. If it could be looked at between now and Third Reading, perhaps we might have an Amendment then to put it straight.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, after "publication" to insert "or previously held or carried on by him,". The noble and learned Earl said: This is a more important Amendment because here we are amending the law in a sense that I like. I am afraid that some of your Lordships will be upset by this clause of the Bill—Clause 2—because the ambit and the scope for vexatious actions is hereby greatly enlarged. Your Lordships must

  331
  realise that. If we are enlarging the scope and the ambit of vexatious actions, let us see carefully where we draw the line. I think it is wrong to limit it to the fact that the plaintiff must be
  "in any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on by him at the time of the publication."
  To my mind, what really matters is the time to which the slander related. Consider this case—I do not know whether it is a happy illustration or not. Take, for example, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and myself. We are both ex-Lord Chancellors, we are both retired, we both have a pension—I do not know whether we have to behave well to get the pension or whether it comes to us anyhow, but that does not very much matter. But does the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, come under this clause, or can I say what I like about him? Must I hold back my comments about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Porter, at the present moment, and console myself by saying all the nasty things I can think of about my noble friend, Lord Simon, while waiting for the day (which I hope will be a very long time ahead) when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Porter, retires, and then make up for lost time by saying what I want to about him? If that is a correct illustration, it seems to me absolute nonsense. After all, the man who needs protection perhaps more than anybody else is the man who is out of a job and wants to get one. If a man is out of a job and wants to get one, why should he not be entitled to bring an action? I think this clause is much too narrow.
  Take again the case of my schoolmaster. He had lost his employment and was out of a job, and he wanted to get another. He was a man who was going to be affected more than anybody else by rumours and slander. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tucker, will support me here, because if we are opening the door and are going to allow this new form of action, let us have it on a logical basis. I suggest that there ought to be inserted here the words "or previously held or carried on by him." That, I think, is only fair. For that reason I am not going to spend any further time on this point. I am trying to get this Bill through and to give all the help I can. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 10, after ("publication") insert the said words.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: The Committee have been interested, I am sure, in the explanation which the noble and learned Earl has given. I followed it closely, and definitely on this subject I do not agree with him. We must assume now that there is the distinction between libel and slander which we discussed earlier to-day. What does Clause 2 deal with? It deals with a person who has
  "any office, profession, calling, trade or business."
  As the law stands at the present time, even though the person has an office, profession, calling, trade or business, he will not be able to recover damages for something said to his discredit unless the words were spoken of him in the way of his office, profession, calling, trade or business. The instance has been given of the teacher who, it was said, had mis-conducted himself whilst on holiday. That is perfectly intelligible as a principle, and it is the present limitation of the law. This extension by Clause 2 says: "Yes, you have an 'office, profession, calling, trade or business' and you have suffered because something has been said about you in the way of your 'office, profession, calling, trade or business.'" The thing may not itself have been said as being calculated to disparage you in that "office, profession, calling, trade or business"—for instance, the business of a teacher. The whole of that depends upon the man being at the time a person who has an "office, profession, calling, trade or business." If we were to amend this Clause so that it applied to people who have not any such "office, profession, calling, trade or business" and say, none the less, that no special damage need be proved, then we should be going back to the proposition which has been rejected or withdrawn—the proposition that slander and libel should be assimilated. For these reasons I cannot agree to accept the Amendment, though it is a very interesting point, and no doubt we could talk about it for a long time.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can only say that I agree with the words of the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken.
  EARL JOWITT: I am sorry about that, because I think that the Amendment is one for which the argument is overwhelming. Having said that, perhaps my view is not worth very much, therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4:
  Unintentional Defamation
  (5) For the purposes of this section words shall be treated as published by one person (in this subsection referred to as the publisher) innocently in relation to another person if and only if the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say—

  (a) that the publisher did not intend to publish them of and concerning that other person, and did not know of circumstances by virtue of which they might be understood to refer to him; or

  (b) that the words were not defamatory on the face of them, and the publisher did not know of circumstances by virtue of which they might be understood to be defamatory of that other person,

  and in either case that the publisher exercised all reasonable care in relation to the publication; and any reference in this subsection to the publisher shall be construed as including a reference to any servant or agent of his who was concerned with the contents of the publication.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: This is really a formal amendment but it has been found to be necessary by the draftsman. I think the reason is that we have already used the word "costs" and this is necessary in order to get the language of the Bill consistent. It is a pure formality. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 19, after the second ("such") insert ("costs and").—(Viscount Simon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT had given notice of three Amendments the first being to omit from subsection (5) (b) "words were not defamatory on the fact of them and the." The noble and learned Earl said: I think we can deal with these three Amendments together. What we are now dealing with is unintentional defamation. I am endeavouring to follow the Porter Report here. I think it is an excellent document, at any rate in bits, and this, I think, is a good bit.
  334
  I do not think the protection given by the Bill as drafted, if it is intended to give protection, is worth anything. I think it is a dreadful lot of words, but you are so conditioning it and all the rest that I think it comes to nothing at all in the end—nothing whatever. I think that what we have to do is alter the wording, and I suggest that we should alter it in these respects.
  At present, the Bill says that subsection (4) (b) is not to apply unless certain conditions are applicable. One of the conditions is
  "that the words were not defamatory on the face of them"
  That makes the thing absolute nonsense. Suppose you are writing a book, and that in that book you put a character who is a terrible villain, a murderer, what you will—the most dreadful character in the book. You describe how he is in the condemned cell, or what you will, and you give him the name john Jones. Then some John Jones comes along and brings an action against you. Of course the words are defamatory, and it is only because they are defamatory that the man brings an action. What has to be established for the claim to be substantiated is not that the words are defamatory but that they are defamatory of a man of whom you have never heard. I really feel that if you have these words there you strike out the whole benefit of the clause altogether.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Earl will realise that he is wrong, if he refers to the passages immediately before this paragraph.
  EARL JOWITT: I am sorry. I gather that I am wrong. I confess that it does not seem to me necessary now to press the first of these Amendments.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I venture to think not.
  EARL JOWITT: May I now come to my next Amendment? This is the one which relates to the passage in the Bill about agents. Of course a man is always responsible for the acts of his agents. The effect of adding this provision, I suppose, is to extend the category of those who would normally be agents. Take the case of a printer. Does every man who sets up type have to be considered, because if so that is an impossible task.

  335
  What is meant is agents who are agents of the printer for the purpose of reading the stuff through, and all that sort of thing. I suggest that these Amendments make a change which is most important. The question is whether we are going to do what the Porter Report recommends. I believe they are absolutely right in saying the principle is that you should not hit a man by reason of the malice of some other man unless he has reason to know or suppose that that other man was malicious. As a matter of form I submit my first Amendment. If, as I strongly suspect, in view of what the Lord Chancellor has said, there is nothing in it, I will withdraw it and we can have a discussion on the next. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will tell me what is a convenient course to take.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I really think that we have to take these Amendments one at a time. I do not think they follow in an inevitable chain. If I may, therefore, I will take it that we are considering the Amendment to page 3, line 29.
  EARL JOWITT: I had better not move that Amendment but move the next one, at page 3, line 34, which is to leave out from "publication" to the end of line 37.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 34, leave out from ("publication") to end of line 37.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I must say that I agree with the noble and learned Earl that in the form in which this clause comes from another place, it contains language which has to be carefully read. I think that the way the noble and learned Lord, Lord Porter, put it in his Report, though it may come to the same thing, is easier to follow. We will not alter without need. The question is whether we should do something here? I understand that the purpose of this Amendment is to enable a publisher to rely upon the defence of unintentional defamation, notwithstanding the state of mind of any servant or agent of his who may be concerned with the contents of a publication. Is it clear that the Amendment would have that effect? On the ordinary principles of the law of master and servant, which the noble Earl knows so well, it would seem that the publisher would be liable for the actions
  336
  of his servants or agents. Are not the words which the noble Earl seeks to leave out words which might have a limiting effect, inasmuch as they restrict the publisher's liability to servants or agents who are concerned with the contents of the publication? I should have thought that it was right that the publisher should be liable for actions of his servants or agents who are concerned with the contents of a publication. In the case of a publisher who is a limited company, the publisher must obviously act through his servants or agents. For these reasons I venture to submit to my noble friend that we really do not need to make this change.
  EARL JOWITT: I want the publisher to be liable for the actions of his servants and agents in the proper sense. Surely we are not going to define the class of servants and agents so that it comprises everybody concerned in a publication, because that, it seems to me, enlarges the class of servants and agents. The illustration I would give is the case of the printer. Obviously he has servants or agents concerned in printing a publication, but I should have thought a printer could not be held liable by the reason of the knowledge of one of his men setting the type, though the man setting the type is obviously concerned in the publication. I think what the noble and learned Viscount has done here is to enlarge the class of servants and agents. If the noble Viscount can give an assurance that he will look at this from the point of view of cutting down the class of servants and agents other than those for whom the publisher is normally responsible, I shall be satisfied.
  LORD PORTER: Would not the noble Earl bear in mind that the actual words are "concerned with the contents of the publication" and not "concerned with the publication." Therefore, it may be that some of his objections have been met by the actual phraseology.
  EARL JOWITT: Then, if the noble Viscount will look at it, may I withdraw my Amendment?
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Certainly; it is a very tricky point.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (6) to leave out "the words were written by the author without malice" and insert:
  "publication was made by him under such circumstances that he did not know and ought not to have known that the author had written the words maliciously."
  The noble and learned Earl said: This is an Amendment of substance which I formally move. I have much hope that your Lordships will decide with me, and with the Porter Report. Once again, I am on the side of the angels.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 40, leave out from second ("the") to end of line 41 and insert the said new words.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: This Amendment carries us to subsection (6), and as it is short I will read it to see how the matter stands at present. It states:
  "Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply in relation to the publication by any person of words of which he is not the author unless he proves that the words were written by the author without malice."
  The Amendment would exempt a publisher in a case where, although the words were written maliciously, the publisher did not know this and was not negligent in not knowing it. Suppose we altered subsection (6) in this way, would the subsection then add anything to the effect of subsection (5)? It seems to me that it would add nothing, because under subsection (5) the publisher can successfully invoke the defence of unintentional defamation if he can show that he has exercised all reasonable care in relation to the publication. All that the noble Earl is suggesting in this Amendment is to leave out subsection (6). As I see it at present, I do not think I should agree to that.
  Considerations for and against subsection (6) seem fairly easily balanced. Let me put them. On the one hand, it may be said that a publisher should be entitled to relief if he has not been negligent in not knowing his authors' malice. On the other hand, it seems not unfair in a case of this kind that the burden should be borne by the publisher rather than fall on the shoulders of the person defamed, especially as the publisher is entitled to recover a contribution even to the extent of a full indemnity from the author. These are the arguments on either side. I ought
  338
  also to tell the House that this point was discussed in another place with some particularity and it was thought that the deletion of subsection (6) would not be regarded as an uncontroversial Amendment, and Members wanted it retained. This is one of those cases where either view is quite possible. I should most gladly look at this Amendment again, with any additional argument the noble Earl thinks well to suggest, though my inclination is to think we had better not accept the Amendment but leave the clause as it is.
  EARL JOWITT: I do not mind. I raised the Amendment in order that the matter might be discussed and so that perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Porter, might give his view.
  LORD PORTER: I have great sympathy with the noble and learned Earl's suggestions. When my Committee discussed it, we thought that the malice of an outside person should not affect the protection of the publisher. I can remember a well-known case in which a malicious person wrote a book which the publisher thought was a mere novel, having no reason for knowing it was aimed at any person, though, in fact, it was, and the publisher had to pay damages. I think our idea was that he should be protected where he had taken all due precautions in these matters. Of course, it is always possible to say that the doer must suffer—I am going back to the most ancient phrase of which I can think—but that is what we desire to get rid of in Clause 4. The only question is, whether we succeed in Clause 4 in giving protection to the publisher.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that this is the most difficult point in the whole Bill. It raises a question which is always a difficulty in the courts—namely, which of two innocent persons is to suffer? Here we have a person defamed by the malice of an author and by an innocent publisher. In this problem it is assumed that the author is a man of straw, so that damages cannot be recovered against him. If they could be recovered, the question would not matter, because as joint tortfeasors, as we say in the law, the innocent publisher could no doubt recover from the guilty author. But it is a nice question in such a case as this which of two innocent people should suffer. For my part, I have the greatest

  339
  difficulty in coming to a fair conclusion upon it. On the whole, I should be inclined to leave the matter as it comes to us from another place, because of not being able to come down on one side or the other.
  EARL JOWITT: That is a reasonable point of view. I think it is a difficult point, and I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment on that.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  Justification
  5. In an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved, if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff's reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges.
  4.41 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved to delete all words after "slander" and to insert:
  "a defendant may rely in mitigation of damages on specific acts of misconduct by the plaintiff other than those charged in the publication complained of provided that due notice in accordance with rules of Court which shall he made for that purpose has been given to the plaintiff of the instances upon which the defendant intends to rely."
  The noble and learned Earl said: This is an endeavour to deal with what I feel is an unsatisfactory clause. I take this view. Supposing that you have a case of a man who has been a thoroughly "bad hat" for a long time—he is a burglar, a robber, and goodness knows what, with a long catalogue of crimes against him—but that the one crime he has never committed is forgery. In writing the libel about him you add the words "and forgery"—a comparatively small thing, if you will, compared to the crimes he has committed. What ought you to do? The Bill as drafted—which here follows the recommendations of the Porter Committee—seems to think that you could say: "Well, you have accused him of a long list of things, which are terrible things indeed, and whether you add forgery or not does not much matter." Therefore, you can have a defence to the action. I believe that is wrong. In my view, the right way to deal with it is this. The man should have an action against you, and you should not have a defence to it, because you have accused
  340
  him of forgery when he is not a forger. On the other hand, I feel that you ought to be able to bring out all these things to indicate that he ought not to get much damages. In short, not that it should be a defence to the action where you have stated something that is wrong, but that it should be a matter that could be dealt with in damages—and in all probability the man would get only one farthing damages. I do not think it is right to say that, where you have taken upon yourself to libel a man, and you have something which, but for this Bill, would not have allowed you the defence of justification,
  "a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved."
  I think that if you include a charge which you cannot prove, you cannot justify it. I believe that this is the wrong way of doing it.
  I would add this. Although it is true that Clause 5 is recommended by the Porter Committee, I think I am right in saying (Lord Porter will correct me if I am wrong) that the substance of the Amendment which I have down on the Paper was something which was recommended by the Porter Committee. I have always thought that the position we have reached at present is quite ridiculous. May I remind your Lordships of what it is? It really becomes a matter of manœuvring in these libel actions. In the old days the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and I used to manœuvre against each other with great profit and content to ourselves, if not to our clients. If you simply call your client into the box, but do not ask him any questions at all, then you can say to the jury: "I have called my client into the witness box. They have had every opportunity of asking him any questions they liked, but he cannot be cross-examined as to credibility." The result is that to-day the whole thing has become quite farcical. If you have to ask him some question, whatever it may be, then, technically, he should be cross-examined as to credibility. I do not think the present situation is right. It can happen to-day that you may have one of the greatest rogues unhung going before a jury and getting damages just as though he was a man of saintly character. That cannot be right. I think the jury ought to deal with real facts. That is another reason why

  341
  I feel that this Amendment should be put in the Bill. It is not a matter on which I feel strongly, but here again I am doing the best that I can for Lord Porter. I am trying to strengthen and hold up his arm, and to encourage him. He seems to be running away from his Report. It is a very good Report, and the noble Lord must support it and fight for it with that vigour which he sometimes shows. If he does that, then almost certainly all the Amendments that I advocate will be carried. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 42, leave out from ("slander") to end of line 47, and insert the said new words.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Neither the noble and learned Earl nor I are attempting to manœuvre now: we just want to get at the substance of the thing as quickly as we can. May I say at once that, though I appreciate that the form of the Amendment is different, it seems to me that this is, in substance, the same thing as leaving out Clause 5, which is the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin? At all events, this is the story about it—and it is not irrelevant to see just how it worked out in the other place, though I am far from saying that we should not make an alteration if it seems proper to us to do so. As the noble Earl says, it would restore to the Bill what I believe was the proposal of the Porter Committee. They said that a defendant should be able to give evidence of acts of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff other than those charged in the publication complained of. The noble Earl puts it in his Amendment:
  "A defendant may rely in mitigation of damages on specific acts of misconduct by the plaintiff other than those charged in the publication complained of provided that due notice "
  is given. That is the form in which the clause appeared in the Bill as introduced in the other place. The introducer was entirely faithful to the Porter Report: he, at least, did not depart from it in that respect. In the other place it met with strong opposition, I believe from all sides, on the ground that it was unreasonable that a defendant should be able to rake up the plaintiff's past life: it might be to rake tip his past life and bring out something which happened long ago before he was a reformed character. No doubt there have been cases which have
  342
  illustrated that aspect of the matter very forcibly. On the Committee stage in the other place an attempt was made to redraft the original clause in a manner which would take account of these objections, but it was not found possible to do it in a way which was wholly satisfactory. I ought to add that the Solicitor-General—who, with the Attorney-General, rendered a great deal of help in the other place, if I may say so, in connection with the Bill—advised the Committee that it would be better to delete the clause. However, it comes before us in the form which your Lordships see.
  I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Earl has just said, that this is a matter about which two views may be held. We all want to do the best thing. I think that, had it not been for what the noble Earl has said, I should have been rather more confident that we should keep the clause as it is, though I should want to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has to say. However, I am impressed by the fact that what the noble Earl is proposing is to get back to the Porter Committee. I should rather like to hear what Lord Porter has to say about this.
  LORD PORTER: I think there is a slight misapprehension about this matter. Our Committee recommended two things. We recommended the clause which appears in this Bill, arid we recommended the clause which the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, proposes to substitute for it. But the clause which it is proposed to substitute for the clause in the Bill is not really an Amendment of the clause at all. It is a proposal for an entirely new clause, dealing no doubt, as all matters of defamation must deal, with the same type of thing but not dealing with the same problem. The first aim, and the one which appears in the Bill, was an endeavour to deal wilt an actual case which occurred where a litigant got damages because something comparatively small had been added to the facts by mistake—the case of a scamp, not deserving of any damages but yet entitled to those damages because of one slip. There was the further difficulty with regard to those matters. Suppose that somebody were to defend and paid a small sum into court to deal with that

  343
  particular problem. The man in question might take it out and say: "Well, I won that action. They have paid damages into court, and I took them out." It is to deal with that class of topic that this suggestion was made. I would ask your Lordships to notice that, at the end, the clause is careful to say provided that the words complained of do not do further injury to his reputation. Therefore, you do get those two protections.
  I should also deal with the proposal of the noble Earl. My own feeling about it is that, though it is an admirable suggestion in its way, it is not one to be dealt with in a Defamation Bill. It goes far beyond defamation. There are many cases when you want to say that a man has not got a reputation, or you want to attack his reputation on individual matters. At the moment, you cannot do that in any case whatever. That is a matter which, I suggest to your Lordships, goes beyond a mere Defamation Bill. Just as in a later matter I shall have to say the same thing. so I think this is too wide to include in a Defamation Bill. That is the objection, as I see it, to that part of the Amendment.
  LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN had given notice to leave out Clause 5. The noble Lord said: I thought it might be convenient if I said a word about the next Amendment, to delete the clause altogether, because this is all part of the same subject. Indeed, most of the arguments that I would put forward in favour of the deletion of the clause have been put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt in support of his Amendment. So far as I am concerned, I am equally in favour of his Amendment as of my own. I think that one or the other ought to be accepted, and I do not mind which. The case for leaving out the clause is, I think, a strong one. It was discussed at considerable length in another place in Committee, on the Report stage and in Third Reading. It seems to have aroused a good deal of feeling. As noble Lords who have read the Report of the discussions in another place know, the clause was saved by only one vote in Committee, and there was a good deal of cross voting. I believe a number of eminent lawyers supported the deletion of the clause. I agree fully with everything the noble and learned
  344
  Earl has said, and I think that his argument would point equally to the deletion of the clause as to his own Amendment.
  The case which is made for this clause must, I think, be influenced by the extraordinary difference of opinion about it. Feeling seems to be equally divided on the matter and, therefore, there can be no very strong reason for the clause. I think that the real view of it is this. In the case of libel, we are dealing with a calculated series of defamatory statements about an individual, and I imagine that that would be equally true in the case of slander, because the clause refers to "two or more distinct charges." In the case we are contemplating, these are deliberate charges made against an individual. Contrary to the provisions of Clause 6 of the Bill, there is no duty on the part of the person making the statements to make them. I can well understand that where the defence of fair comment is available there would be a public duty on the part of a person to make certain statements. He might go wrong in a minor respect and one would have some sympathy with him. But this is not such a case. This is not a case where the defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest is available. It is a case where a person deliberately sets out to defame another. On the merits of the thing, I would say, therefore, that if a person has gone wrong and has said more than he is entitled to say, there is no injustice in such a person suffering.
  Two arguments have been adduced in support of the clause. First, there is the procedural difficulty that the plaintiff might succeed on a minor point, and in the result get the costs of the action and be able to say that he has had some success. As regards costs—I speak here with all humility—is it not possible for Her Majesty's Judges to make rules of court (if they are not already made) by which it would be possible to deal with a matter of this kind? Judges have considerable discretion in the matter of costs, and if the answer is that they have no discretion in a matter of this kind where a plaintiff succeeds on one portion of the case, then I should myself have no objection to Her Majesty's Judges being given discretion in the matter of costs. I can see nothing wrong with a plaintiff, having had charges made against him which are not true, however minor they are and however much they do not materially

  345
  damage his reputation, being exonerated from that charge and it being put on record that, however black this man's character is, he is at any rate not guilty of this particular charge against him. The other point was in regard to the defendant being able to pay a sum of money into court and the plaintiff taking it out, thereby becoming entitled to the costs of the action. Again, is it not possible to deal with this—if it cannot he done under existing powers—by way of an alteration of the rules of court, so that, for instance, in a libel or slander action a plaintiff who draws the money out of court must then make an application to the judge for the costs of the action? It is then within the discretion of the judge whether the plaintiff becomes entitled to the costs or not.
  I believe those were the only justifications for this clause. I feel that there is, perhaps, in our desire—which I think would he common to everybody in this Committee—to prevent "gold-digging" and unjustified actions, a danger that we may go a little too far in the opposite direction and not give to a person who has been defamed the justice to which he is entitled. It is going to be exceedingly difficult for anybody to say that a person's reputation has not been materially injured having regard to the truth of the remaining charges. That is an exceedingly difficult thing for anybody to take upon himself to say, and for this reason I feel the best thing would he to leave out this clause.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: With great respect, it seems to me that, while we are trying to shorten the discussion, we are discussing two quite different things at the same time. I rather question whether, if Lord Jowitt's Amendment were adopted, the clause he seeks to amend could by any possibility have the side note of Justification. He has moved an Amendment to Clause 5 by cutting out all the words after
  "in an action for libel or slander …"
  and writing in another proposition which has nothing to do with justification. Therefore, I am wondering whether we ought not to look at the two things separately. If I take Lord Silkin's Amendment first—to leave out Clause 5—that is a straightforward one. He says he thinks that if a man brings an action for
  346
  defamation, saying that lie has been defamed by what the defendant has said in various particulars, and if the defendant fails to justify a single one of those particulars, the plaintiff ought to recover damages. But the unanimous view of the Porter Committee, as I understand it, was that if the words which are not proved to be true in the opinion of the jury do not in fact materially injure the plaintiff's reputation at all, then the sting of the libel is justified and the plaintiff ought not to succeed. It has nothing to do with calling evidence about the previous bad life of the plaintiff.
  LORD SILKIN: The noble Viscount says: "… do not injure the plaintiff's reputation at all," whereas the words of the clause are:
  "… materially to injure …
  There is some justification.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Quite right. But I should be prepared to leave to the jury. under the direction of the High Court Judge, the question whether or not the words which have not been proved to be true do in fact materially injure the plaintiff's reputation. It seems to me that if 99 per cent. of what has been published is proved by the defendant to be true, the circumstance that in some immaterial extent the plaintiff's reputation may be affected k really not the reason for giving the plaintiff judgment. I will not say anything about the costs, which is a technical point. For my part, I should stand by the Porter Report.
  The other question which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, raised in his Amendment is, again, supported by the Porter Report, but it does not seem to me to come under the topic dealt with in Clause 5. It is a matter that we should deal with by re-numbering the clauses. I personally should be prepared to defend Clause 5; I think it ought to be in the Bill. But ill the Committee think that on Report stage we might have this other matter raised, it might be possible to see whether there is a strong argument for accepting what the Porter Report says about that.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for saying whet I was going to say. The Amendment of the noble Lord Lord Silkin, to leave out Clause 5 seems

  347
  to fly straight in the face of the unanimous Porter Report. I think it will commend itself to most of us that a plaintiff, having been libelled—we will say in five particulars—and proved to have been guilty on four out of the five offences which are stated in the libel, but who proves that in regard to the fifth the libel is false—that is to say, that it a libel—should not recover damages unless the jury come to the conclusion that he materially suffered in his reputation having regard not to matters outside the case but to the matters of which he complained and in regard to which it is shown that he rightly complained. That is what the Porter Report advocated, and I think it is a reasonable view which should commend itself. As to the other matters which formed the subject of Lord Jowitt's Amendment, I think you are travelling far outside the peculiar law of libel if what the noble Lord is suggesting is that, apart from any manœuvre or false manœuvre by which the plaintiff may lay himself open to cross-examination, it should be open to the defendant to say: "Yes, but you who complain of this libel have been guilty, either in your youth or only the other day, of some offence." It may be a case of a man who had committed some offence and lived it down; and yet it may be raked up by the defendant in order to mitigate damages for injury which the plaintiff had suffered in a recent libel. I think that that is not right. For that reason I should not myself be prepared to accept this Amendment.
  EARL JOWITT: I must say that I object to Clause 5 in toto. I think it is a bad clause, as at present drafted. You have left out something in the Porter Report which was very useful, and put in this peccant clause. It would have been better to put in the good bit from the Porter Report. When the Lord Chancellor was enjoying the Arcadian and lush peace of the Chancery Division he knew that if something that a man had done many years ago were brought up, the chances were that the damages would be enormously increased.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I never thought anything to the contrary—not even in my days of "Arcadian and lush peace"!
  EARL JOWITT: He knows that if a jury thought a man was raking up something which a man had done a long time ago there might be a great many noughts added to the amount of the damages.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is not that just what the noble and learned Earl suggests—that a defendant may rely, in mitigation of damages, on specific acts of misconduct committed by the plaintiff, other than those charged?
  EARL JOWITT: I say he may find that he will have to pay very heavily indeed unless he realises this procedure. I believe this Amendment is the right way to deal with this matter. It does deal with the law of libel. It was recommended in the Porter Report. It was unanimously pointed out by the Committee that it was something which extended far beyond the law of libel, like limitations. They did not hesitate to say so. But here is something typical, a problem of the law of libel and slander. However, I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD SILKIN: I beg to move my Amendment to leave out Clause 5.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 5.—(Lord Silkin.)
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT had given notice of an Amendment to insert after Clause 7 a new clause dealing with money paid into court. The noble and learned Earl said: I understand that this is already provided for by rules of court which I myself signed. That being so, I do not propose to move this new clause.
  5.11 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after Clause 7 to insert the following new clause:
  Defamation of Groups
  ". Where any defamatory statement is published of and concerning any group of persons distinguishable as such by race creed or colour which would be actionable if published of and concerning an identifiable person or persons, any person or group of persons claiming to belong to such group may institute proceedings for defamation as if he or they had been expressly defamed:
  Provided that no proceedings under this section shall he brought without the leave of the Attorney-General."
  The noble Lord said: I do not propose to move this Amendment at any length, because the subject matter of this proposed clause has been considered and discussed at great length and all the arguments which I could put forward in its favour are perfectly well known. It is designed to meet an admitted evil, the evil that whereas if certain things are said about an individual then clearly they may be defamatory and he has a right of action, but if the same things are said about a group of which that individual is a member, then, as the law stands at present, there is no effective remedy. It is true that there is an offence of seditious libel but it is not the kind of remedy which is seriously open, and as a recent case has shown it is at the best a very uncertain method. This matter has been considered by the Porter Committee, and I think I may say that they were in sympathy with the objects which this clause seeks to secure. They found themselves in difficulties on two grounds, as did those who were opposed to this clause in another place.
  In the first case, I think the Porter Committee thought that this proposal might in some way interfere with freedom of expression. That is something which frankly I have not been able to understand. We are speaking of something which is defamatory, and the whole of this Bill and of the law is designed to discourage and, if possible, prevent defamatory statements from being made. On that argument it could equally be said that to award damages for any defamatory statement was discouraging freedom of speech or freedom of expression, and I must confess that I fail to understand in what way a defamatory statement about a group differs materially from a defamatory statement about individuals. In this Amendment I am not concerned about statements which are calculated to cause breaches of the peace. They can be dealt with by the ordinary law, and if the ordinary law is not adequate I think this is not the place in which to amend it. I am concerned only with defamatory statements that are made about groups in the same way as they might be made about individuals.
  I have given the first objection to dealing with the matter in this Bill. The other objection was one which I frankly accept as a real difficulty, and that is the
  350
  difficulty of definition. I can see it as well as any noble Lord who has taken part in the discussion to-day. What is a creed? Would it apply to such and such groups of persons? And so on. There are words here which are intended to cover the difficulty of an unidentifiable person and any person "claiming to belong" to the group can bring an action; but there would, of course, be the difficulty of determining whether the particular person bringing the action was or was not a member of the group. If there was any difficulty it would be for the jury to decide whether such a person did belong to the group. Also, there is the difficulty of distinguishing a race, group or colour. Colour I suppose would not present a great difficulty. It might in marginal cases; and race and creed might. I see those difficulties, and it is mainly because of them that it was not found possible to accept this provision in another place. Nevertheless I hope that noble Lords will be prepared to give this matter further consideration, and if the clause is not acceptable as it stands be prepared to consider it further at a later stage.
  There is no fear of frivolous actions being commenced under this clause, for the consent of the Attorney-General has to be obtained before the proceedings can be begun, and obviously the Attorney-General would satisfy himself that there was a prima facie case for taking proceedings. There is possibly one weakness—I want to be frank with the Committee—and that is that if every member of the group distinguishable by race, creed or colour, sought to bring an action, or rather if there were one successful action and everyone thereafter sought to bring a similar action, it would be somewhat embarrassing. In another place a provision was there added that no damages should be awarded but that instead the court should be empowered to award an injunction. If that were thought to be an improvement of the clause, I should have no objection. I do not see why anyone who brought an action in those circumstances should not get damages, but, if noble Lords who have given consideration to this clause think that that is an objection, I should certainly not in any way object to adding a provision that there should be no damages but merely an injunction.
  It is, perhaps, pertinent to remind noble Lords that there have been some very cruel and wicked statements made against groups which, if they had been made against individuals, would undoubtedly have resulted in heavy damages being awarded. The most notorious is well known—that is, the statement that has from time to time been made about the Jewish community, that they indulge in ritual murders and that they use the blood of non-Jews for the purpose of carrying out ritual ceremonies. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, seems to disapprove.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not disapprove of anything. Of course, I disapprove of those suggestions.
  LORD SILKIN: I may say that in recent years in one country I have known cases where statements of that kind have actually resulted in serious not causing loss of life. We all like to feel that that could not happen here. I do not suppose it is in the least degree likely, but one cannot be certain that it will not happen when public feeling is inflamed in certain special circumstances. As the law stands at present, it is impossible for any member of the Jewish community to take proceedings even in order merely to get a decision of the court that there is no justification at all for these statements. Similar statements have been made about other communities.
  Possibly an objection to this clause might be that it might be invoked by political Parties. I have no desire at all that that should be the case—I think that political Parties should look after themselves without recourse to the courts—but if, on a reasonable construction of the clause, it is found that it would lend itself to that interpretation, again, I should not in the least object to some form of amendment. I feel that the House ought seriously to consider whether the time has not come when defamatory statements about groups of people should be treated just as seriously as defamatory statements about individuals. There are several European countries where that is already the law, though after the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Normand, that one cannot draw inferences from one country to another, one hesitates to take the case of those other countries. Nevertheless, it is a fact that there are
  352
  in several countries laws which deal with group defamation, and so far as I have been given to understand, deal with them quite successfully. Therefore I should think that no serious difficulty would arise here. I hope the Committee will give serious consideration to this clause. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Silkin.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: This is undoubtedly a clause which will be regarded as of much interest and importance by some sections of the population. I certainly wish to do what the noble Lord has suggested, and deal with it seriously. It is desirable, in the first place, to state what I, at any rate, believe to be the law on this subject at present. because there were one or two phrases in the speech to which we have just listened which seemed to suggest that if there were defamation of a determinate body or a determinate class of persons, as the law stands at present no civil action for defamation could be brought in respect of it. I hope I shall state the law correctly if I begin in this way. When defamatory matter reflects upon each and every member of a determinate body or class of persons—for example, the clergy attached to a particular Church, the lawyers engaged in a particular case or the directors of a particular company—then each and every member of that body or class can, under our present English law, maintain an action.
  In contrast with that—and it is, I think, inevitably so—it has been laid down, and I should think everybody would accept it, that an individual cannot bring an action for defamation in a civil court if the objectionable matter is published about a much wider and vaguer group. For example, the great Mr. Justice Willes laid it down that if somebody said, "All lawyers are thieves," no particular lawyer, whether a solicitor or a barrister, could bring an action and recover damages. It is inevitable, I think, that that distinction should be made. But it would be quite incorrect to suppose that, as the ordinary civil law at present stands, there are not many cases in which any and every member of a determinate body or class of persons can bring an action. If somebody says that the clergy of this Church

  353
  do not attend to their duties, or perhaps says something worse even than that, every single clergyman in that Church can bring an action. If somebody says that the directors of this company are engaged in an elaborate swindle, you could not stop the action on the ground that there are quite a lot of directors. That is what the law is at present. The whole question is whether it can go further than that.
  I feel a great deal of sympathy, if I may say so with great respect, with some of the considerations which weigh with the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment. He will not think any the worse of me if I say bluntly that the instance which I dare say is in the mind of himself and others is, I think, shocking. There is a document, I believe, very widely spread through Europe which is called The Protocols of Zion. I believe it contains allegations that devoted members of Jewry, in pursuing their religious rites, are engaged in shocking practices. I do not believe a word of it and I sympathise very much with anybody who feels that it would be desirable to have some remedy for a case of that sort. Up to a certain point, there is a remedy. It is not in the form of a civil action—this Bill deals with civil actions—but there is a remedy if the person who publishes that libel is charged with the crime of seditious libel and is proved to have published the libel with the intention of promoting violence by stirring up hostility and ill will between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects. That is a part of our criminal law, and a very necessary part of our criminal law, though it is not often resorted to. I think in times past it has been very unwisely used. If we could strengthen the criminal law on that point I should not be opposed to considering it. But that is not this Amendment. This Amendment contains a proposal that in certain circumstances, which are here described, a member of what is called a
  "group of persons distinguishable as such by race, creed, or colour"
  may bring an action in a civil court—I presume for damages, though the noble Lord has suggested we should consider the question of an injunction—because the group to which he belongs has been defamed.
  I can assure the noble Lord that what I am going to say is not quarrelling with
  354
  the words of his Amendment, merely to imply that there might be better and more appropriate words. But I am afraid, much as I sympathise with some of the feelings which have prompted this Amendment, that, however you try to frame this particular proposal, you will fail to produce a satisfactory clause. Therefore, I criticise the words of the proposed new clause not in the least with the suggestion that if only we look at it a bit we shall get something better, but because I believe this has been very carefully considered. I believe these are the words which were proposed in the House of Commons by Mr. Silverman and which were the subject of discussion for two or three days then. The real difficulty is not that these particular words will not do but that no one can find words that would do.
  Just look at the words of this proposal for a moment:
  ". Where any defamatory statement is published of and concerning any group of persons distinguishable as such by race, creed or colour …"
  Let us stop there for the moment and consider what is meant, and what it is that the courts would have to try to interpret, when you speak of "persons distinguishable as such by race.…" That is not, of course, limited to any particular race. If we take for the moment those who are Jews, does it mean people both of whose parents were Jews? Does it include people who are not practising Jews? Does it include people one of whose grandparents was a Jew? It is almost impossible, I think, to see what would be the answers to the sort of questions raised by this phrase: "any group of persons distinguishable as such by race.…" Of course, it is not limited to Jews at all. A good many Scotsmen would say that they were a race. Some Welshmen might say the same, and I do not know how many races there are in Ireland. How any court would ever be able to give intelligent directions to a jury about the law to be followed is extremely difficult to see.
  I hope that I shall not be thought to be ridiculing what is, I realise, a very serious question, if I tell the House how, some years ago, a former Chinese Ambassador to this country related this story to me. He said: "You know, we Chinese have no conception of race." I think

  355
  he meant that the Chinese knew Chinese, but that all people who were not Chinese were, in the Chinese view, lumped together as foreigners. To illustrate his proposition he said that there was a Chinese boy who had been educated in a missionary school in China and who was no doubt receiving instruction on views as to the population of the world held by those who were teaching him. He was asked in an examination paper: "What are the five principal races of mankind?" The Chinese Ambassador told me that the boy replied:
  "The five principal races of mankind are the hundred yards, the quarter-mile, the half-mile, the mile and the hurdles."
  This is an extremely difficult thing to put into an Act of Parliament, and I myself have tried to see whether I could do it any better. But it seems impossible to find a phrase to cover this subject which will not lead to all sorts of trouble.
  Let us consider next what is meant by: "a group of persons distinguishable as such by … creed." Are the Communists persons "distinguishable as such by … creed"? I think a great many of them would say that they are. Now suppose that someone writes that Communists do not believe in God. I have not the slightest idea whether that is right or wrong. Is it seriously suggested that any particular Communist—a high ecclesiastical person in the English Church, for example—can say: "I am a Communist, I am a member of the group; you have defamed me and I will bring an action against you."? It seems to me quite fantastic. Similar difficulty really arises about colour.
  There is a further difficulty which, I am sorry to say, seems to be quite overwhelming. If an action for defamation is going to be brought by any plaintiff against any defendant, it is the law of England, and has been for hundreds of years, that in a civil action you can avoid a judgment against you by proving that what you, said is true. If you can imagine a claim brought by a member of a group of persons "distinguishable as such by race, creed or colour." Is there to be any defence? Supposing the defendant says: "I say it is true." You get yourself then into a line of country. I am afraid, which it is almost impossible to provide for satisfactorily. I can assure
  356
  the noble Lord that I have not approached this subject with the slightest want of sympathy for what I feel sure is in his mind and in the minds of many others. I should like to see something done if it could be done effectively, but I do not believe for the moment that this class of Amendment in a Bill dealing with civil libel could be wisely made.
  There was great discussion in another place on this very question—it went on, I believe, for several days. There was a most careful analysis of the matter and all sorts of suggestions were made. I am not excluding anything. I have only to say now, as one who is for the time being responsible for the Bill, that, subject to any point being raised by the Lord Chancellor and others in authority, I do not think that this clause could possibly be accepted. The truth is that here we come into this conflict as between the individual who feels himself aggrieved and the great principle of not interfering with public comment and pronouncement on matters of general concern. The Apostle Paul wrote a letter to Titus, in the course of which, as I daresay some of your Lordships remember—and quoting, indeed, a Cretan—he said: "The Cretans are always liars." That is in the Epistle to Titus, Chapter 1, verse 19, I think. Could a Cretan reasonably issue a writ against the Apostle Paul and say: "I am a Cretan and you have defamed me"—for it would be none the less defamation because in that passage Paul was quoting someone else. The thing cannot be done.
  I think we have not to try to cover this difficulty by what to my mind is, I regret to say, an impossible Amendment to the law of civil libel. I believe we shall be doing our duty best by doing our utmost to show our respect and our tolerance for people of every race and every colour, by making a stand for doing what is fair and decent by them, and by not believing readily shocking libels which may be told or published about them. For the rest, in really bad cases, we must rely on the criminal law. I do not believe that any other course is possible. Therefore, while I assure the noble Lord that I do not treat this matter lightly, for I know how deeply it interests some good citizens, I have with great respect to tell the Committee, having looked into it as closely as I can, that in my judgment this Amendment should not be accepted.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it would not be right, upon so important a question as this, that I should be absolutely silent. I join with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, both in the sympathy which he feels for those who suffer under what is called group libel and in recognising the impossibility, as he said, of giving effect to such an Amendment as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has proposed. Therefore I can say only that I should not feel it possible to vote in favour of this Amendment or to recommend those who sit on this side to do so.
  EARL WINTERTON: As a layman, I should like to address your Lordships for a moment, because I had particular opportunities of observing the suffering of the Jewish race as chairman and British Government representative for six years under three successive British Governments on the Inter-Governmental Committee for Refugees. I can well realise the feeling which the noble Lord has on such a matter as the protocol. As the result of my experience, I think there is no country in the world where the Jews need special protection less than they do in this country. May I say, with a feeling of great responsibility, to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and others of his race, that in the long run there is nothing more damaging to the Jewish race than to suggest that they need special protection. In the eloquent words of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, we should rely on the good sense and integrity of the British people in cases of this kind and not put anything in an Act of Parliament which would be completely unworkable.
  LORD SILKIN: I deeply appreciate what has fallen from the lips of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. When I put down this Amendment, I was sure that the Committee would view it with great sympathy, but I had some doubt whether it would be possible to formulate words that would be satisfactory and achieve the object I had in mind. I am certain that this has been properly considered by those who are in a position to improve the wording, and I accept what the noble Lords have said, that it is not possible to obtain a form of words which would be satisfactory. In
  358
  the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
  5.44 p.m.
  LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved, after Clause 9 to insert the following new clause:
  Documents at public or lending libraries
  ".—(1) In an action for defamation against a local authority or a member or officer of a local authority in respect of matter published in—

  (a) the notice of an intended meeting of a local authority;

  (b) the summons specifying the business to be transacted at any such meeting;

  (c) copies of any reports or other documents which relate to the business to be transacted at such meeting and which are sent to members of the local authority; or

  (d) the minutes of proceedings of a local authority;

  a defence of qualified privilege shall not be defeated by reason only that such document has been exhibited in a public library or a lending library.
  (2) The placing of any book or document which has already been published in a public library or a lending library and the handing thereof to a person attending the library for perusal shall not for the purposes of the law relating to libel be deemed to be the publication of such book or document.
  Provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect the jurisdiction of the court to grant an in junction in respect of such book or document.
  (3) In this section—

  references to a local authority include a joint board or joint committee comprising representatives of local authorities and the expression "local authority" has the meanings assigned thereto by the Local Government Act, 1933 and he London Government Act, 1939:

  the expression "public library" means a library provided in pursuance of the Public Libraries Acts, 1892 to 1919:

  the expression "lending library" means a library where the business of lending books or periodicals is carried on."

  The noble Lord said: This clause is of warm interest to local authorities and, in particular, to municipal corporations, who are specially concerned with one section. There is a history behind this clause. A similar, but by no means identical, clause was proposed in another place, and from observations which were made there it seemed that the sponsors of the Bill would have been willing to accept a clause of this kind, in view of the strong representations made by those

  359
  who had acquainted themselves, as I have, with the feelings and responsibilities of local authorities on this subject, but exception was taken to the precursor of this new clause on the ground that it went too far and gave too absolute a protection to local authorities in the cases with which the clause deals. The clause I now move has been prepared with a view to overcoming this difficulty and thus assisting the sponsors of the Bill to introduce these provisions, which have such strong support in equity and which in their present form I trust will excite no opposition. I venture to suggest that the acceptance of this new clause would facilitate the passage of the Bill and not in any respect delay it, which is very far from being my desire.
  As regards the actual contents of the clause, I should like to say a few words on the protection to be afforded to local authorities. This comes under two headings—first, in respect of the publication of such matters as notices and agenda of meetings beforehand and minutes afterwards which may subsequently he ascertained to contain defamatory matter. As regards these, this clause, as distinguished from its precursor, would give additional protection to local authorities, subject to the ordinary provisions of the law on malice and evil intent. Those with a superior knowledge of the law will recognise that this deals with the well-known case of Dabruzzi v. Stepney Borough Council, in which the local authorities were actually cast in damages. They had put on a notice board a notice of a meeting which referred to the possible prosecution of some of their servants.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: A notice put up where?
  LORD KENNET: On the notice board at the local library. I think—in any case, in some place accessible to the public. It is the strong contention of the local authorities that it is their duty, as representatives of the public, to acquaint the public with their proceedings beforehand, as well as afterwards, and that they are not fulfilling their duty to those whom they represent unless they let them know what they are about at all stages of their proceedings.
  The second part of the clause deals with the publication of what may be de-
  360
  famatory matter by depositing a book in the public library without the local authority knowing that it contains defamatory matter. The contention of the local authorities is that they have a duty to the public to keep a library, and in the discharge of that public duty they should be protected against actions done without knowledge and not done with malice or evil intent. That is the whole matter as regards this clause. As I say, it has been devised in a manner to preserve those safeguards of the rights of the public which may have been thought to be too much excluded in the first form of the draft. I commend it to the Committee and to the sponsors of the Bill as effecting a substantial improvement in the law, which I trust will cause no strong dissent in any quarter. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 9, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Kennet.)
  LORD BURDEN: As a mere layman I hesitate to intervene in this discussion, but I hope that my intervention will not be taken too unkindly. In my limited experience of municipal life, I have always felt it desirable that, so far as possible, names should not be mentioned in minutes or documents of that kind. Before I continue, I should say that I have a limited measure of interest in this Amendment, because it is backed by the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which I have the honour to be one of the Vice-Presidents. I should not have intervened in this discussion in support of the Amendment but for the curious position in which the Bill will leave us if it is passed in its present form. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said, the ordinary and normal method of acquainting the electors of any borough of a council meeting and the matters to be discussed at that meeting is by placing in the public library the recommendations which are to be considered.
  Let us suppose that a committee has had referred to it a matter in which some one has committed, or is thought to have committed, some defalcation, or something of that kind. The committee, having looked at the matter in all its aspects, recommends either dismissal or some other form of dealing with the matter. That is included in the recommendations of the committee, and is exhibited in the

  361
  public library. The recommendations of the committee then come before the council, and for some reason or other the council do not accept those recommendations. I speak subject to correction, but the curious position, as I read the Bill, is this. In Paragraph 10 (a) of the Schedule, as I read it, a limited protection is given in connection with the publication of any debate on that recommendation which may take place in the council, whether the recommendation be accepted or not. But if it is not accepted, the person concerned, if mention were made of his name and the alleged offence, following the precedent which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, world have the opportunity of taking action.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I should like to follow the noble Lord. To which page is he referring?
  LORD BURDEN: Page 8 of the Bill.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Which line?
  LORD BURDEN: The noble and learned Viscount will see the words:
  "A fair and accurate report of the proceedings at any meeting or sitting in any part of the United Kingdom of:
  (a) any local authority or committee of a local authority or local authorities"—
  and going to the bottom of the page—
  "not being a meeting or sitting admission to which is denied to representatives of newspapers and other members of the public."
  What I am venturing to submit is that the matter which may be regarded as defamatory would be considered by the particular committee at a meeting to which the public and the Press were not admitted, but the recommendations would be submitted to the council for confirmation, or otherwise. The argument I was venturing to develop was this. The council in their wisdom, may turn down the recommendation of the committee. But if those recommendations have been published in the sense of being placed in the library, then action would lie against the council or the officer. I am sure that that is not a position that would commend itself to the noble and learned Viscount. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said, this is an Amendment which comes to this Committee out of the wide experience in connection with the administration of local authorities of responsible men, and it is one which I
  362
  believe will tidy up the Bill and remedy what might be a serious position in the future.
  LORD SALTOUN: I should like to say a few words in support of this Amendment. I can tell your Lordships of something which occurred to me and which I feel gives support for the Amendment. At the commencement of the war the Secretary of State asked me, under a seal of confidence, for some information which I was in a unique position to give. I was reluctant to give the information, but eventually I gave it under a seal of confidence. I found later on that, by a pure slip, it was given in an incorrect form to a large committee in my own part of the world. It did some damage. Much later I was able to rectify the position. The point I want to make is that had that report been known to the committee, and the committee alone, not being a member of the committee I should never have found out about it and the damage would have been irretrievable. As it was, I immediately took the natural and necessary steps to get the matter corrected, and, as nobody is ever actuated by malice on these committees, it was corrected without harm being done to anybody else. I feel it is important that people should have that opportunity. As a matter of fact, it all passed off smoothly and happily. In my view, that justifies my noble friend's Amendment.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: What my noble friend behind me has just said is vividly in his mind, and I am glad that what he has told us happened in his case was so happily and smoothly disposed of. But, with great respect to him, I think he will see that what we have to deal with on this Amendment is not quite in point with what he has been saying. The Amendment proposes two things, as was very clearly explained by my noble friend Lord Kennet. There is a subsection (1) and a subsection (2). It might he convenient to take the two things in the reverse order and look at subsection (2) first, because really it is quite a separate point. In subsection (2) the noble Lord wants to provide that proceedings for defamation cannot be taken against whoever is responsible for the conduct, either of a public library or of a lending library, in respect of a libel contained in a book which is placed in the library, and which those in charge might hand out to a

  363
  borrower. I quite understand that those specially skilled and interested in local government want to have that matter considered, because it is the local government people who run public libraries who, quite correctly, I think, suggested that the Amendment would deal with both public and lending libraries. It would deal with The Times Book Club and anything of that sort.
  With great respect, I venture to doubt whether, in recommending this as an important Amendment to the Bill, the existing state of the law has been quite appreciated. It certainly would be the most outrageous thing if a man who found inside the pages of a book handed out in good faith by the official in a public or lending library something which defamed him, could issue a writ and say to the public or lending library: "You have published a libel about me." If he ever attempted to do anything so curious, he would at once be met by a perfectly well understood part of the law of libel, which is that the law protects "innocent dissemination." It is the same law which protects W. H. Smith and Sons every day of the week when they sell for the necessary number of pennies any newspaper you ask for. They are not expected to have read what they sell. They are asked to provide a perfectly reputable thing; they are paid for it and they supply it. But the law has long ago laid down that that is what is called "innocent dissemination," and is not publication of the contents at all. Life could not continue on any other terms.
  The consequence is that no such library, whether public or lending library, runs the least risk because, with all due care, it proceeds to hand out the book which it is asked to hand out. On the other hand—and this applies both to public and lending libraries—if indeed they have on their shelves a book which a careful person would know to be the sort of book which scatters libels abroad, then there may arise a duty on the people to look at the book and see what it contains before they hand it out. This was all laid down by a very distinguished Master of the Rolls who is now dead—Lord Justice Cozens-Hardy—and I will read a passage of a judgment of his in the Court of Appeal in a case against The Times Book Company. He said:
  364
  "It was quite impossible that distributing agents such as the respondents should be expected to read every book they had. There were some books as to which there might be a duty on the respondents or other distributing agents to examine very carefully because of their titles or the recognised propensity of their authors to scatter libels abroad. Beyond that the matter could not go. It was impossible to say that there was a liability to examine the contents of books like the two in question, which were by authors of high character."
  I do not think there is any doubt at all about the law, and I do not think, as a matter of fact, that lending or public libraries have ever been in jeopardy on that subject.
  Of course, it is quite true that if a library deliberately takes in a few copies of a sort of book which they ought to know is spreading libels and other matter, they ought not then to treat it as a thing which should be lent to the public. With that exception, that sort of problem never arises at all. I think, therefore, with respect, that the defence of innocent dissemination—and it is well recognised by those of us who have to concern ourselves with this rather murky subject—is an ample measure of protection. If you want to go further than that, you reach a point where you expose the person defamed unreasonably to the circulation of a document which does, as the circulator ought to know, contain libellous matter. That does not touch the whole point raised by the noble Lord opposite, because he was concerned, as indeed was my noble friend Lord Kennet with subsection (1) as well as with subsection (2).
  LORD KENNET: The noble Viscount quite rightly said that subsection (2) is in a completely different context. The two subsections bear no relation to each other at all. What the noble Viscount has just told the Committee with so much clarity and authority differs from previous opinions which have been received by many authorities on the subject. If I may say so, I prefer the noble Viscount's authority. In the circumstances, I think I may say on behalf of myself and noble Lords who have been good enough to support this clause that we should be quite content to leave subsection (2) in view of what my noble friend, Lord Simon, has said, and trust that he may be able to accept the first part.
  LORD PORTER: Might I add that there was a case recently in which a jury

  365
  found that a library ought to have examined right through its magazines to see if they contained any libel? They said there was not a proper examination of the magazine. Thereupon, the Court of Appeal promptly said there was no evidence upon which they could be found liable. Therefore, you have the protection of a case actually deciding that point—that there cannot be a demand for a library to examine with care the documents in its possession.
  LORD KENNET: I am obliged to the noble Lord because, with his great authority, he fills up just the single gap in the position of the local authorities on this matter about which anxiety was felt—that was, the action of, shall I call it, an unaccountable jury as to the measures the authority should have taken.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: That is really all right now. I quite agree that subsection (1), which I take now, raises quite a different question, and nothing that I have said up to now touches that at all. I am afraid I must trouble your Lordships to consider that subsection for a moment. What is the proposal? As a matter of fact, it was a proposal which was put down, though not discussed, in another place, and now we can look at it. The proposal is that, in the case of a local authority, they shall still have qualified privilege, as the law calls it, in every case of their publishing in a public library or a lending library the notice of the intended meeting, the summons specifying the business to be transacted at the meeting, copies of any reports relating to the transactions of such meetings, or the minutes of proceedings of a local authority. The defence is "qualified privilege"—that is to say, that there was no malice in the publication and that it was done in good faith. The defence is "qualified privilege" and it is not to be defeated by reason only of the fact that such document has been exhibited in the public library or lending library.
  Here again, one has to be very careful to see exactly what is meant by "qualified privilege." If there is a duty to publish to others a document, even though it is a defarnatoy document, the publication is in discharge of that duty; that is covered by qualified privilege, and no action could succeed. Even though there is not a duty to publish, if it is really in
  366
  the interests of a local authority, on the one hand, and of the citizens, on the other, that there should be necessary and reasonable publication to protect the interests of the citizens and to inform the citizens of what their elected representatives are doing—which is one of the principal reasons for local government—then all that confers qualified privilege. The question can never be anything but this: was it really nothing beyond what is reasonable that this information should be published or exhibited in a public library? My own experience of the English jury tells me that there would be no doubt as to the result, because it appeals to one's common sense; and juries do exercise a high degree of common sense—and in any case they are assisted by the judges. So I do not see that there is anything there to be troubled about.
  But, of course, if the local authority are regarded as publishing these things—which I am assuming contain some defamatory matter—in such an indiscriminate way as goes entirely beyond their duty or the interest of the citizens, I think that the judge would rule that that may not be qualified privilege, and the jury may find it is so. Then the person defamed will get his remedy. But it is not the case, so far as I know, that a local authority at the present moment, when they publish these documents in a public library, are exposing themselves to damages unless indeed it is established that what they have done is a reckless and indiscriminate use of their opportunities of making these things known. But who is to decide that? Can we possibly do it in an Act of Parliament? We cannot. We can only rely on the court to draw the lines sensibly, having regard to the facts of the case.
  I will, however, gladly examine this point afresh, for I want to do what is right. I should not think at present that it was necessary to have this Amendment. If what I have said were proved to be true, and others who are authorities agree, this might well give some comfort to local authorities. No one would wish to urge that the matter should go beyond what is a reasonable discharge of the duty of the local authority or the interests which the local authority and the citizens together share. Therefore, while I think the Amendment is not necessary,

  367
  and while I should be sorry to include it in the Bill, because it would suggest that there was some new law being made which was going too far, I will, as I say, look at the matter afresh and no doubt the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will kindly give me a little assistance in the matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It seems to me, with great respect, that the Amendment would go much too far, because it is unqualified in this sense: that it gives a qualified privilege to the publication of copies of reports or other documents which relate to the business to be transacted at such meetings and which are sent to the members of such local authorities. It may be unfair and unwise that documents which are to be the subject of the scrutiny of the members of the local authority should be scrutinised beforehand, as they would be in a public library. On the other hand, I think that what the noble and learned Viscount has said is correct with regard to reasonable publication, and that it must be left to the court in each case to decide. But I will certainly assist the noble and learned Viscount so far as I can in this matter.
  LORD TUCKER: If the matter is going to be further considered I would commend to those who are going to consider it this point. I am speaking only from recollection, but I think that probably the origin of this Amendment is this. There was, I think, a decision that a local authority lost the privilege which otherwise attached to a communication, on occasion, simply by publishing the agenda of a meeting in the public library. The privilege would clearly have covered any communication to the members summoning them to the meeting which they had an interest and a duty to attend. The notice was put in a public library where it could be seen by persons other than the members of the council. That was the origin of this Amendment, and I think it is a matter deserving of some consideration.
  LORD SALTOUN: Publication may be of service, because it would enable timely corrections to be made.
  LORD BURDEN: I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount and the Lord Chancellor for what they have said. But I submit that neither has
  368
  answered the point which I ventured to submit—namely the provisions in the Schedule to the effect that if a matter has gone to the council, if reports are submitted to the council—it would not matter if the report were read in full—there would be limited protection under the Bill. But I shall be quite happy if the matter is looked at again, because I am certain that the case which has been referred to, the Stepney case, is one which needs to be corrected in this Bill.
  LORD KENNET: I obliged for the assistance which has been given to me out of the experience and knowledge of the noble and learned Viscount and the noble Lord. The noble and learned Viscount's remarks with regard to the Stepney case made me a little unhappy, but, subject to any obligations and limitations which are allowed as regards limiting the clause, I shall be happy to co-operate. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11:
  Agreements for indemnity
  11. An agreement for indemnifying any person against civil liability for libel in respect of the publication of any matter is lawful unless the agreement relates or extends to the publication of matter which the person indemnified knows to be defamatory.
  6.20 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved to omit all words after "matter" and to insert:
  "shall not be unlawful unless at the time of the publication that person knows that the matter is defamatory, and does not reasonably believe there is a good defence to any action brought upon it."
  The noble and learned Earl said: I hope I shall get a little concession here—this is a very important matter. It has been for years the practice for people to insure against libel. If the clause is left in this form, I think it will do great harm, for the clause makes it appear that you can no longer insure if you are writing something you know perfectly well to be defamatory but also to be true. If you were writing say some great piece of history, you might have to say about people some very unkind things which you honestly believed to be true. If you could not do that, you need not write at all—which perhaps might be just as well, but I will not comment on that. I should

  369
  like to make it plain that what is intended in this clause is that you can insure your risk if you believe either that the words are not defamatory or, if defamatory, that you have a perfectly good defence if an action is brought. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 21, leave out lines 21 to 23, and insert ("shall not be unlawful unless at the time of the publication that person knows that the matter is defamatory, and does not reasonably believe there is a good defence to any action brought upon it").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I am very glad to say that on this point I agree with the noble Earl and it seems to me that this is an Amendment which should be accepted. I must have an opportunity of looking at it when it is reprinted, but as I see it at present, and subject to the view of others, I think it is quite right to insert it. It is not only the case of ordinary insurance. I think the agreement now commonly made between an author or a prospective author and a publisher is likely to be one which says that the author undertakes to protect the publisher against actions for defamation, and it is quite right that it should be lawful to do that so long as the matter, even though it may be called defamatory, is matter which he reasonably believes gives rise to a perfectly good defence—it might be privilege, or justification, or what you please. I entirely agree with what my noble friend says.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I also, with alacrity and pleasure, agree.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:
  ". In actions for defamation the Court of Appeal shall have power to review the amount of damages awarded whether by judge or jury and if they consider such amount either inadequate or excessive to substitute such a sum as should in all the circumstances of the case have been awarded."
  The noble and learned Earl said: I hope the same pleasure and alacrity will be manifest in regard to this clause, although I do not think it likely, so far as Lord Porter is concerned, because this is one of the recommendations in the Report, and although he did not want to
  370
  strangle them at birth he obviously wants to drown them afterwards. There is really a very strong case for this Amendment. It was unanimously agreed to in the Report, and it was not one of those cases in which we must wait for it to be done in all sorts of actions. Here the Committee made perfectly specific recommendations on these lines. There is a practical reason behind it. It is very difficult to assess damages in all cases. It is very difficult to decide what you should give for a compound fracture of the leg, but in any case of that kind the standard adopted is perhaps rather more real and less hypothetical than it is in actions on defamation. I have known in my own time—and so have the other noble Lords who have practised in defamation cases—perfectly ridiculous damages given. I was careful to set out on the last occasion I spoke a passage from a speech of Lord Justice McKinnon which is a very good illustration of how this thing can work.
  I have known enormous damages given—obviously something has gone wrong in the mind of the jury, who perhaps did not quite understand the matter. I think the Court of Appeal should have wider control than they have to-day. They have power but it must be a very strong case for them to interfere. I want to give them wider powers than they have to-day. The words I have chosen are those which come in substance, almost precisely, from the Porter Report; but although the noble Lord does not agree with them I like to think that all the other members of the Committee, so far as I know, say that this Amendment should be made.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 13, insert tile said new clause.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  VSCOUNT SIMON: There is a Committee now sitting on Supreme Court practice and procedure. It is under the chairmanship of the present Master of the Rolls, and one of the matters which I believe it is considering and on which it has not yet reported is whether the Court of Appeal should have a wider latitude than it has at present in common law actions to say that the damages are too big or too small, without necessarily relying on the present narrower rule which is the only case in which the damages can be modified. I am not able to say

  371
  whether the Master of the Rolls' Committee is going to recommend one way or another. My difficulty is that I do not want to involve my noble friend Lord Porter in the embarrassment of having recommended something which this very authoritative Committee might not agree with. It seems to me that the wiser course will be—I do not think we shall have to wait very long—to learn what is the view of the Evershed Committee on this and other matters. It may well be that their recommendations will fall into line with what Lord Porter's Committee says about libel and slander. I have no opinions about it except to say that I have been very surprised at some of the figures of damages that have had to stand in libel actions. Really, therefore, I think it would be better to leave this proposed clause out at present and see what happens.
  LORD PORTER: I am quite unrepentant on two matters. The first is on the recommendation that says that the Court of Appeal ought to interfere more; and the other is that I do not think the matter ought to be dealt with in this Bill. They are not the same thing. There is going to be this recommendation from the Master of the Rolls. Which way it will go I do not know, but it is very undesirable that one portion of the law should be dealt with and the other left alone. I have just as much difficulty in reconciling awards of a jury in accident cases as I have in cases of defamation. They are just as likely to differ. I remember cases of loss of expectation of life where one jury gave nothing and another jury gave £5,000. There was not so much difference between the two cases. But that is the difficulty which we feel in regard to this particular Bill. May I illustrate it by saying that I am against murder and if murder were not punishable with death in this country and someone said that we ought to stop murder by shooting by passing a Bill to say that murder by shooting shall be liable to capital punishment, I should say, "Let us make all murder liable to capital punishment and not confine it to murder by shooting." You ought not to confine to one Act of Parliament your recommendation that the Court of Appeal should have wider powers.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I feel much sympathy with the Amendment which the noble and learned Earl has moved, but I hope that he will find it possible to wait until the Evershed Committee has reported. That Report, whenever it comes, will cover, I think, all cases of damages awarded by a jury, and I believe it will commend itself to all your Lordships that the same rule should apply to libel cases as to other cases of the type where damages are awarded by a jury.
  EARL JOWITT: This is a case of "jam to-morrow but never jam to-day." I am glad to find one proposition on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Porter, and I agree—that we are against murder. I would say this to your Lordships. I think that this was a sensible and sound suggestion. I know a good deal about law reforming now. I do not know at all when the Evershed Report will be out, but may I ask the Lord Chancellor this? If the Evershed Report contains a recommendation on the same lines as this, will he give me an assurance that he will promptly put at any rate this passage of it into law, or bring in a Bill to do that? If so, by all means let us wait. But if, on the other hand, as generally happens in the case of law reform, we have to wait for about twenty years until that Report comes out—that is about the average time; the Donoughmore Report took about twenty-odd years, I think—we had better have a little bit of "jam" now. If we have this clause now, there is nothing to prevent this excellent principle which has been here enunciated being extended to other fields after the Evershed Committee has reported. How nice that will be! My noble and learned friend Lord Porter will then be in his element in supporting that. But, until we do have time to extend it to other fields, let us at least have it in this field. I suggest that the principle is: "A little jam to-day is possible, with the hope of a lot of jam tomorrow." Let us hope we get a lot of "jam" to-morrow but, in the meantime, let us have a little to-day. It does not in the least prejudice what is going to happen in the future. We may be able to extend it to all forms of action. I hope the noble and learned Viscount in charge of this Bill will accept this Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble and learned Earl asked me for an assurance as to what would happen when the Evershed Committee made their Report. I think he will realise that it is quite impossible for me to say that there will be room in the legislative programme for any such Bill at any particular time. He will perhaps remember that it was only by the aid of a Private Member that we were able to get this Bill to-day. Surely, the noble and learned Earl does not expect me to give him an assurance of that sort?
  EARL JOWITT: I knew perfectly well that the noble and learned Lord would not give me an assurance, because he could not possibly give such an assurance. That means that I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, realising that, in the nature of things, there can be no assurance that any Bill on those lines will be introduced this side of the Greek Kalends, will let us have this little clause in this little Bill at this little moment.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I do not think I can yield to that blandishment, but I certainly will, if I may, as soon as ever we get through the Committee stage, have a further communication with the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Porter, because I quite appreciate the strength of the point which the noble and learned Earl has been good enough to make.
  EARL JOWITT: That being so, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 14 [Application of Act to Scotland]:
  LORD NORMAND LORD NORMAND moved, in paragraph (b), to delete the last word "and" and to insert as a new paragraph:
  "(c) subsection (2) of section four shall have effect as if at the end thereof there were added the words 'Nothing in this subsection shall be held to entitle a defender to lead evidence of any fact specified in the declaration unless notice of his intention so to do has been given in the defences.'; and"
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment is purely one of procedure, to bring the new enactment into line with the general rule of Scottish procedure, that no reference may be made to any material of which notice has not been given in the pleadings. The Amend-
  374
  ment has been considered by the Lord President of the Court of Session and by the Lord Advocate and his predecessor in office, all of whom agree and support it. I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 48, at end, leave out ("and") and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Normand.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Of course, I accept this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Schedule:

  STATEMENTS PRIVILEGED WITHOUT EXPLANA TION OR CONTRADICTION
  1. A fair and accurate sport of any proceedings in public of the legislature of any part of Her Majesty's dominions outside Great Britain.
  6.35 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved to add to Paragraph 1:
  "or of any foreign country or province or state of a foreign country."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the last question which I think will arise to-day. I put it forward, after some consideration, in the hope that your Lordships may think it right to make this small change. I do not think I would recommend it to your Lordships' House if we had made no changes in the Bill, but there is already one small change made and the question is whether this is not a desirable change. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who has had to leave, authorises me to say that he entirely agrees with this Amendment. It is in the Schedule at the top of page 7. The Report of Lord Porter's Committee, at page 26, paragraph 110 (A) (a) (ii), recommended that there should be qualified privilege for a "fair and accurate" report of proceedings at public of the Legislature of any part of Her Majesty's Dominions outside Britain or, it added, of any foreign country or province or state of a foreign country. As the Bill was introduced in another place, it did cover the report of proceedings in foreign

  375
  Legislatures as well as reports of proceedings in Legislatures in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions.
  That provision, that there should be the defence of qualified privilege for a report of the proceedings in public of the Legislatures of foreign countries, was cut out in the course of the discussions in another place. I have a feeling that it was cut out, to some extent, under a misapprehension of its purpose. What I, at least, have in mind, and I think many others, is this. We do not seek to confer this qualified privilege upon a newspaper for the purpose of protecting the newspaper. It has nothing to do with protecting newspaper proprietors. The point is: is it not greatly in the public interest that the people of this country should be informed, by a fair and accurate report, of what has taken place in foreign Legislatures? Take, for instance, the Congress of the United States. Is it really in the interests that we are all trying to serve, of trying to reconcile the right of free information and discussion with the necessity of protecting people who are defamed, that we should put on the Statute Book something which, in effect, says to a British newspaper: "Now, you had better not report that. It is a fair and accurate report enough of what happened in this foreign Legislature. There is no difficulty there but, mind you, the foreign Legislature in this fair and accurate report might reflect upon 'A.B.', who will have the law on you if you dare to report that." It is not that I want to protect the newspaper. It is, as it seems to me, essential in a free country like ours that we should have the free opportunity of knowing what, in fact, has been said and done in foreign Legislatures.
  I have taken the case of the Congress of the United States, but the same thing applies equally, of course, to any Soviet Parliament. I quite understand that it may be that a fair and accurate report will show that they have said something most objectionable about somebody, and I quite understand that somebody may say that it is not true. But the question is, which is the better? Should we really know what is happening in these foreign Legislatures or would it be wiser for us to say: "No, we must be careful to see that no one who might be a plaintiff here shall ever have any reflection cast on his reputation, even by a fair
  376
  and accurate report of what is being said in a foreign Legislature. Therefore we will not give even qualified privilege to the most careful newspaper that contains a most accurate report." That is the real issue. I say, with respect to those who took part in the discussion in another place, that I do not think that that aspect of the matter was sufficiently before them. I think that some of them thought that this Amendment was going to confer some advantage on newspaper proprietors. That is not the case at all. If we do not do this, then, obviously, newspapers will hesitate before they give fair and accurate reports of proceedings in these foreign Legislatures. And that is the very thing which we ought to have.
  Therefore, it seems to me, on balance, that this is an Amendment which we should do well to make. It is based on the recommendation of the Porter Committee. It is true that there is not a similar proposal about the decisions of foreign courts. But I think there is a distinct difference. It is important, on public grounds, for us to know what is going on in the Legislatures of foreign countries. It might be important in the case of some courts, but it is not, manifestly, so important to know exactly what goes on in every foreign court, especially when it is reflected that some foreign courts are not always models of judicial procedure. I have explained the purpose of this Amendment and I hope that it may commend itself to the Committee. I shall be very sorry if it in any way arouses any difference of opinion between this House and the other. But I think we ought to submit this to the other place, with our suggestion that it would be a pity to omit this clause, and that it is not in the interest of the newspapers but in the general interest of citizens that we should, by this means, have the best opportunity of knowing what is going on in the Legislatures of the world. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 8, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Simon.)
  6.43 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: This appears to be the only case where there is conflict between this House and another place. I think it is right that if this is going back it should go back with the agreement of

  377
  the whole Committee. I should, therefore, like to express certainly my own view, and, I believe, the views of those with me, that this is not only an acceptable Amendment but a good one. I will venture to disagree with the noble and learned Viscount only on one small point. I read the Report of the proceedings in another place, as he did, and I formed the impression that they did understand the significance of this point but that they disagreed because they believed that in certain cases some Legislatures, which are very different from our own, went out of their way to be defamatory. But that is a very small point. I think this is a good Amendment, for the reasons given by the noble and learned Viscount. It might possibly strengthen our hands if it were felt that this Amendment had been carried here by general agreement.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I may add, in order to enforce what the noble and learned Viscount has said, that the Amendment has the approval of myself—so far as that is relevant—representing Her Majesty's Government.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 24, at end insert ("or of any foreign country or province or state of a foreign country").—(Viscount Simon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  FAREHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
  GLOSSOP WATER BILL
  ROCHDALE CANAL BILL
  CITY OF LONDON (GUILD CHURCHES) BILL
  SCOTTISH MUTUAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY'S BILL

  NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  CLIFTON SUSPENSION BRIDGE BILL [H.L.]
  CHESHIRE BRINE PUMPING (COMPENSATION FOR SUBSI DENCE) BILL [H.L.]
  KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  LLANELLY DISTRICT TRACTION BILL [H.L.]
  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBY SHIRE TRACTION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.