Sitting of 11 March 1952

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Another Member took and subscribed the Oath.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL (By Order)
    ROCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    South Bank (Riverside Walk)
    Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Liptonasked the Minister of Works whether he will open the riverside walk and restaurant facilities on the South Bank to the public this summer until the expiry of the lease.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. David Eccles): The riverside walk belongs to the London County Council and I am about to hand it back to them. Any inquiries should be addressed to the Council.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the Minister give an assurance that he will do all within his power to encourage the praiseworthy efforts of the L.C.C. to make this attractive amenity available to the public as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Eccles: Yes, Sir.

    British Council Offices
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Works how much is being spent to provide a separate entrance to the offices of the British Council in the Government premises at New Oxford Street, London; and how long these alterations will take to complete.
    Mr. Eccles: Thirty-five pounds were spent on removing bricks from the back entrance of these premises in order to comply with fire regulations and make an opening wide enough to take in display stands. The work was done in four days. Similar work is desirable to provide better access at the front entrance and may be undertaken if conditions permit.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does that answer mean that the Minister has not yet made up his mind to carry out the additional work in the front? Is there any reason why the staff of the British Council cannot use the same entrance as other inhabitants of this building?
    Mr. Eccles: It is desirable to do this work and also to provide better access for these inhabitants and better escape in case of fire. As it costs money, I have not yet made up my mind.

    Requisitioned Premises
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Works what plans he has in mind for a general de-requisitioning of privately owned buildings still occupied by Government Departments, particularly in the town of Ayr.
    Mr. Eccles: Special efforts are being made by all Government Departments to economise in the use of accommodation in order to release more requisitioned premises. In the town of Ayr there are only two private houses now held on requisition but, owing to the ban on new office building, a scheme which would have ensured their release has had to be abandoned. I shall continue my efforts to find alternative accommodation.
    Sir T. Moore: While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether he appreciates that there is a natural and understandable resentment by private traders and others when they see their premises still occupied by Government Departments six years after the end of the war? Will he do as much as he can quickly to free all these requisitioned premises?
    Mr. Eccles: I appreciate that and am doing all that I can.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the strong feeling in Ayr that the barracks should be de-requisitioned and utilised for housing purposes.

    Lewis's, Liverpool (Building Licence)
    Mrs. E. M. Braddockasked the Minister of Works how many tradesmen are working on Lewis's extension in Liverpool; when permission was given by his Department to move quantities of steel, allowed for building in Manchester by the same firm, to be used on the Liverpool site; and why this firm have not been included in the building standstill order.
    Mr. Eccles: The work on Lewis's at Liverpool is not an extension but a reconstruction of a war-damaged building. On 29th February, 64 building trades craftsmen were employed on the site. The use of steel from Lewis's unfinished prewar building at Manchester was authorised in April, 1949. The deferment of starting dates does not apply to work in progress.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that it is very difficult to convince people that there is a shortage of steel when one looks at the progress of Lewis's in Liverpool? Is he also aware that the steel which is being used has been transferred from a similar project in Manchester which seems to have been abandoned? Is it right what people in Liverpool are saying, that if one happens to be Chairman of the Conservative Party one has no difficulty in obtaining steel?
    Mr. Eccles: The transfer of the steel was authorised by the late Government. I assume that, like some of her hon. Friends, the hon. Lady is "having a go" at her own Front Bench.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was supposed to be a standstill order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Only on new building."]—and that it does not seem to have applied to this firm? Following the decision to suspend work on schemes, even though permission for the work had been given by the previous Government, is it not the case that very many such projects were stopped and that practically the only one in Liverpool which has not been stopped is the one where the managing director is Chairman of the Conservative Party?
    Mr. Eccles: The hon. Lady is quite wrong. The standstill order did not apply to work in progress. It would have been very uneconomical to stop work on buildings which were already going up.

    Hedgerows, St. James's Park
    Mr. Gerald Nabarroasked the Minister of Works what representations he has received about the future of the young hedgerows around St. James's Park; and if he will give an assurance that he will resist proposals to grub them up.
    Mr. John Tilneyasked the Minister of Works if he will consider removing the unsightly yew hedge that surrounds St. James's Park.
    Mr. Eccles: While I have received no official representations about this hedge, I am aware that there is considerable feeling for and against it. I am anxious to test public opinion further before taking any action.
    One of the principles of laying out a park is to make a given space appear larger than it is. In my opinion the hedge breaks this principle by interrupting the view of the grass and lake. If it were grubbed up, I should have to provide a robust fence.
    Mr. Nabarro: Why does my right hon. Friend continue to equivocate in this matter? Does his reply mean that his policy will be to continue the hedge or otherwise?
    Mr. Eccles: I want to give public opinion a further chance to express itself.
    Mr. Tilney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although these trees, which are out of keeping with our tradition, have since the war been endeavouring to shut in the natural grandeur of one of the loveliest of parks, these rows of yew are now bedraggled, unkempt and frequently split, and lack all formal unity?

    King William III Statue
    Professor Sir Douglas Savoryasked the Minister of Works whether he will make arrangements to render the statue of King William III accessible to the public at least on 12th July and 5th November, as at present this statue in St. James's Square is surrounded by a fence with locked doors so that it cannot be seen except at a distance.
    Mr. Eccles: Access to this admirable statue is controlled by the Trustees of St. James's Square. My responsibility is limited to the maintenance of the statue under the provisions of the Public Statues Act, 1854.
    Sir D. Savory: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to prevent his sacred Majesty of blessed memory from being isolated in a sort of German concentration camp?
    Mr. Eccles: I have a suggestion to make to my hon. Friend. The Minister of Labour has in his keeping a key to this garden and, with his sincerity, my hon. Friend might move the Minister to lend him the key.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: In the interests of peace across the water, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that he will provide similar amenities and facilities for his late most gracious Majesty King James II?

    New Garage, Manchester (Building Licence)
    Mr. W. Nallyasked the Minister of Works if he will cause an investigation to be made into the circumstances under which a licence or licences were approved enabling a garage and other buildings, valued at £7,000, to be built upon a site in Moston Lane, Blackley, Manchester.
    Mr. Eccles: Two licences, for £160 and £1,475 respectively, were issued by my Department last year for work at this site. The smaller licence was for the installation of petrol pumps. The larger licence was for the erection of a garage and was granted on the sponsorship of the Ministry of Transport.
    Mr. Nally: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that throughout the whole of this suburb there is a justifiable belief, held irrespective of party politics, that, although the original transaction was during the time of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, from beginning to end this has been a highly dubious transaction which needs further investigation? If I provide the right hon. Gentleman with further information, will he take steps to see that trained investigating officers of his Department go into the whole of the unhappy circumstances?
    Mr. Eccles: I am not aware of that. In any case, the responsibility lies with the Ministry of Transport, who said that the garage was necessary, and I have every reason to believe that it was.
    Mr. Eric Johnson: Will my right hon. Friend also be prepared to receive figures, with which I will furnish him, to
    1238
    show that the amount of £7,000 is merely a product of the fertile imagination of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally)?
    Mr. Nally: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is exactly the point that we are anxious to establish? Is he aware that one of the leading Tory elders in Blackley, who is well known to the hon. Gentleman, personally assures me that the work could not possibly have been done under £7,000?

    Brick Production
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Minister of Works if he is satisfied that the production of bricks is sufficient to meet the needs of the housing programme.
    Mr. Eccles: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied with the position at the end of January. I hope that the increase in output will continue and be sufficient for the expanding housing programme and other essential needs.

    Field-Marshal Smuts (Memorial)
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Works what progress has been made towards the erection of a statue to the late Field-Marshal Smuts.
    Mr. Eccles: A Resolution will shortly be laid before the House to consider an humble Address to Her Majesty praying for directions to erect the Memorial. I am glad to inform the House that Lord Harlech has agreed to preside over the Selection Committee and that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party have also agreed to serve on this Committee.

    Dome of Discovery
    Mr. Norman Doddsasked the Minister of Works what action has been taken to get the best possible price for the Dome of Discovery.
    Mr. Eccles: When finally the London County Council decided not to re-erect the Dome, competitive tenders were invited for its demolition. In this way the best price will be secured consistent with the need to clear one of the finest sites in the world in readiness for next year's celebrations.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Is it not a fact that all the London County Council have decided is that they cannot re-erect it at

    1239
    the moment without further consideration? Even at this stage, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider going further into the matter of preserving this magnificent building for London, where it could be used for a series of entertainments and exhibitions for the benefit of the people of London?
    Mr. Eccles: No, Sir. A time comes when one must make a decision if the site is to be cleared, as I am certain the majority of the people of London want it to be.

    Christies', St. James' (Rebuilding)
    Mr. Martin Lindsayasked the Minister of Works for what purpose the large constructional work between Duke Street and King Street, St. James', is being undertaken; and what is the value of the licence granted.
    Mr. Eccles: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to Christies' premises at 8, King Street, St. James', where the auction galleries, store-rooms and offices are being rebuilt after war damage. A licence for £205,625 was granted in May, 1951, for this work.

    Building Materials (Price Control Removal)
    Mr. Gilbert Longdenasked the Minister of Works what changes there have recently been in the price control arrangements for the building materials for which his Department is the production Department.
    Squadron Leader A. E. Cooperasked the Minister of Works what changes in prices for building materials controlled by his Department are contemplated; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Eccles: Yes, Sir. I was anxious to remove price controls where they have outlived their usefulness, and therefore have consulted the producers of building materials concerned.
    Most of these industries would have been granted increases of price to cover increased costs of coal, freight, raw materials, etc. They have now given assurances that they will keep such increases to a minimum and will establish prices which will remain firm during 1952 unless there are further major increases in cost.
    1240
    On the basis of these assurances I have removed price control from plasterboard, Gypsum rock, building plasters, sanitary fireclay, asbestos cement, lead sheet and pipe, sanitary earthenware, cement (ordinary Portland and rapid hardening), and certain types of flat glass.
    Mr. Longden: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what saving of manpower this will entail?
    Mr. Eccles: It will entail savings, but I need notice of that question to give any hon. Friend an accurate answer.
    Squadron Leader Cooper: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for this encouraging statement, may I ask him to tell the House whether metal windows and like fittings are included in this de-control?
    Mr. Eccles: No, Sir; only the materials I mentioned.
    Mr. E. Shinwell: Before removing price control, did the Minister ascertain whether there was a plentiful supply of these materials and whether in future there would be a plentiful supply?
    Mr. Eccles: Yes, that was one of the considerations.
    Mr. C. W. Gibson: In view of the statement in "The Times" recently that the cost of house-building materials had risen by 25 per cent. during the last 12 months, does not the Minister think that he has taken a dangerous step? Ought we not rather to make sure by controls that these prices are kept down in the interests of cheaper house building?
    Mr. Eccles: Under the old system I should have had to grant increases at least equal to those which have taken place. My own view is that the supply of these articles is more likely to come forward when the industries are freer.
    Mr. George Brown: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware, on the information of his own Department, that a great struggle has gone on to keep the rate of profit in the industries he has mentioned down to anything like a reasonable figure over the last few years? Plasterboard supplies are controlled by the supply of raw material, particularly paper. How can he assure the House that there will be a sufficient increase in

    1241
    supply to prevent the rate of profit rising as it would have done but for the voluntary price control?
    Mr. Eccles: Delivery dates for plasterboard, when I took office, were anything up to six months and are now down to immediate supply.
    Mr. Frederick Mulley: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that if the prices of these materials are put up beyond a reasonable amount because of increased costs—if, for instance, the plasterboard people do what they did last year and break a voluntary agreement—will he take steps immediately to re-impose price control?
    Mr. Eccles: I shall watch the situation, but I have confidence that these industries will conduct their affairs with responsibility.
    Mr. Brown: May I ask the Minister whether he is being fair with the House in saying that the delivery date was six months when he took office, since the general ban on building which he has now imposed was not there? How will he ensure that there will be ample supplies when he re-opens the building programme properly, or does he never intend to make the supplies match the real programme?
    Mr. Eccles: When the right hon. Gentleman was in office he failed to secure adequate supplies of paper liner for the plasterboard industry. I have now secured those supplies and the situation is easier.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Works the current annual rate of coal consumption of the Palace of Westminster, including the coal equivalent for gas and electricity consumed in the buildings and precincts of the Palace; how this figure for 1952 compares with earlier years; and what steps are in hand to improve heat, light and power arrangements at the Palace of Westminster, with a view to coal conservation and efficient utilisation.
  Mr. Eccles: The total consumption of coal, and the equivalent in coal of gas and electricity and fuel oil in 1951 was 4,771 tons. This compares with an
  1242
  average of 2,849 tons for the five years before the new boiler house came into use in 1950.
  The increased consumption is due to the additional accommodation, and amenities mostly in the new House of Commons.
  The domestic hot water system will shortly be connected to the new plant, and the separate boiler closed down. Insulation of steam and hot water pipes is nearly complete. These measures should result in increased efficiency and the working of the system will be carefully watched to ensure all practicable economies.
  Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend seized of the importance of coal conservation and fuel efficiency in these matters, and should not the House of Commons set an example? Can he assure the House that he is looking to his boilers and his steam raisers?
  Mr. Eccles: Yes, Sir. This boiler was installed before I came into office.
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will my right hon. Friend take great care to see that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) does not set the Thames on fire?

  EMPLOYMENT

    Macclesfield
    Air Commodore A. V. Harveyasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the increasing unemployment in Macclesfield; and if he will discuss with his right hon. Friends the possibility of bringing other industries into the district.
    The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): Yes, Sir. I am in touch with my right hon. Friends about the employment position in Macclesfield and other areas similarly affected.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and send officers to Macclesfield as soon as possible, because the unemployment there has been building up steadily since last June.
    Sir W. Monckton: Macclesfield is one of those places where there is considerable unemployment in the textile

    1243
    and clothing industries, and in my judgment it is too soon at the moment to judge what the pattern of that industry will be and what the level of employment will settle at. However, I am keeping this closely in mind and am in touch with my right hon. Friend whose province covers it more nearly than mine.
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has consulted his right hon. Friend, what does his right hon. Friend intend to do about it?
    Sir W. Monckton: I think the answer to that is that my right hon. Friend, like myself, will want to take into account some things of which we are at the moment not fully aware. For instance, one is the situation in Australia, and perhaps we might hear something later in the day which we ought to take into account.

    Skilled Engineers, Coventry
    Miss Elaine Burtonasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that skilled engineers in the motor industry in Coventry are finding it impossible to obtain alternative employment where their skill may be used to the best advantage, either in the motor industry or the defence programme; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this situation.
    Sir W. Monckton: The demand for skilled engineers in Coventry greatly exceeds the supply and in general the only types of skilled engineering workers for whom suitable alternative employment in their own trade is not always immediately available locally are skilled sheet metal workers and coach body-workers. The employment exchange is continuing its efforts to place the workers affected in suitable employment.
    Miss Burton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, of course, quite right. Is he aware that in Coventry many men in the National Union of Vehicle Builders cannot obtain alternative skilled employment, and will his officials confer very carefully with the union?
    Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir, certainly.

    Coalmining (Recruitment Poster)
    Mr. James Simmonsasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the fact that an adequate supply of labour in the brickmaking industry is essential to the housing programme, why his Department is encouraging brickworkers to go into the coal mines.
    Sir W. Monckton: This is not the policy of my Department. I presume that the hon. Member is referring to an unfortunately worded advertisement, which has now been withdrawn.

    Load Spreading
    Mr. R. Ewartasked the Minister of Labour to what extent the policy of load spreading in the north-east industry has resulted in a saving of man-hours over the present winter months; and how this compares with previous winter man-hours and production.
    Sir W. Monckton: I am making inquiries to see whether this information is available and will communicate with the hon. Member.

    Sunderland
    Mr. Frederick Willeyasked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken to secure employment for the large number of severely disabled persons in Sunderland at present unemployed.
    Sir W. Monckton: Remploy, Limited, hope to provide employment in their factory at Pallion during 1952 for a few more of the 117 severely disabled unemployed persons in Sunderland. My local officers are also making continuous efforts to obtain suitable work for all unemployed disabled persons, including the severely disabled, and are receiving valuable help from the Sunderland Disablement Advisory Committee in obtaining the co-operation of local employers.
    Mr. Willey: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that the only course to take, in view of the large number of severely disabled in Sunderland, is to proceed with the building of another Remploy factory?
    Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. I am not satisfied that the moment has come for that.
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the Minister of Labour how many workers in Sunderland are working short time.
    Sir W. Monckton: This precise information is not available, but at 11th February there were 168 persons registered as unemployed at employment exchanges in Sunderland who were not at work on that day on account of short-time or other temporary stoppages.

    Hayes and Harlington
    Mr. W. H. Aylesasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed and the number on short-time in Hayes and Harlington, Middlesex, on the last convenient date.
    Sir W. Monckton: One hundred and eighty-eight on 11th February, 1952, of whom three were not at work on that day on account of short-time or other temporary stoppages.
    Mr. Ayles: Is the Minister aware that last Friday the E.M.I. discharged 500 men and that next week they are to discharge over 200? Will he consult with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply with a view to re-opening the Royal Ordnance Factory in Hayes, which at present is on

    1. The number of persons of foreign nationality admitted to this country to take up employment is available only for those recruited under official schemes.

    2. In addition, records are maintained of the number of individual permits issued to employers in respect of foreign workers abroad to enable them to take employment in this country. Statistics are not maintained to show the numbers actually arriving.

    3. A number of foreign visitors or students have been granted permission to take up employment after entering the country.

    4. The following Table gives the figures in each category.

    Category

    1947

    1948

    1949

    1950

    1951

    (a) Number of Foreign workers recruited under official schemes

    37,594

    40,225

    8,661

    4,728

    2,613

    (b) Number of individual permits issued to employers

    27,002

    28,460

    35,226

    35,035

    36,570

    (c)Number of visitors or students permitted to take up employment

    2,615

    2,740

    2,781

    2,781

    3,040

    Notes.—Permits recorded at (b) above may be for only short periods of employment.

    The number of cases recorded at (c) above excludes visitors or students given permission to take up resident domestic employment for which no statistics are maintained.

    5.The principal industries or occupations entered by foreign workers were:—

    Category (a)—Agriculture, Coalmining, Textiles, Brick making, Domestic Service (mainly hospitals and institutions) and nursing.

    Category (b)—Domestic Service (mainly private), Entertainment, Student Employment, Nursing, Teaching, Agriculture, Textiles, Tinplate and Brickmaking.

    Category (c)—No statistical record by industries or occupations is available.

    a care-and-maintenance basis, in order to provide alternative employment?
    Sir W. Monckton: I will look into those further facts and see what can be done about it. The date of 11th February is the last available date for which I have full information.

    Foreign Workers
    Mr. J. A. Sparksasked the Minister of Labour how many persons of foreign nationality were admitted to this country to take up employment each year during the past five years; and what were the principal industries they entered.
    Sir W. Monckton: The information available includes tables of figures, and, if I may, I will circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Sparks: Is there scope for further admission of foreign nationals, and in which industries in particular could they usefully be placed?
    Sir W. Monckton: I will look into that. I am not aware of the answer at the moment.
    Following is the reply:

    Labour Supply Inspectorate
    Mr. Victor Yatesasked the Minister of Labour the powers and functions of the Labour Supply Inspectorate.
    Sir W. Monckton: Labour supply inspectors have power to enter and inspect undertakings and to require the persons carrying on the undertaking to produce books, accounts and records, and to furnish information, relating to the use of labour in the undertaking.
    They are authorised at present to use this power only when the undertaking has asked for more labour to be supplied. Their function is to advise whether the additional labour needs to be supplied.
    Mr. Yates: Have those powers been increased over and above what they were when the Labour Supply Inspectorate previously worked under the Control of Engagements Order?
    Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. They have not been increased.

    Newcastle-upon-Tyne
    Mr. A. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons unemployed in Newcastle-upon-Tyne at the latest available date; the number of adult men included in this total; and a list of classes of employment mainly affected.
    Sir W. Monckton: The number of unemployed in Newcastle-upon-Tyne at 11th February was 5,248, of whom 3,542 were men aged 18 and over. The industries with the largest numbers unemployed were: Shipbuilding and ship-repairing; building and contracting; non-electrical engineering; distribution; catering, hotels, etc.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in view of the rather dangerous position with regard to shipbuilding and ship-repairing, he should take up the matter of steel allocations with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply?
    Sir W. Monckton: The figures for 11th February which I have given are very nearly the same as those of a year ago, and the figures in shipbuilding are about 20 different. However, I will, of course, bear in mind what the hon. Member has mentioned.
    Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Will the Minister also bear in mind that a large number of the 5,000-odd unemployed are disabled and that there is a crying need for further Remploy factories to be built in the area? Will he do everything possible to encourage the building of these Remploy factories to provide employment for these men?
    Sir W. Monckton: I fully appreciate the importance of Remploy factories, but this is not the moment when I can encourage the belief that more can be built at once.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the Minister agree that, while it is true there has not been an increase in the numbers of unemployed during the last month, nevertheless, in view of the steel position, there is great anxiety in the area about the employment position in the shipbuilding industry?
    Sir W. Monckton: I will bear that in mind. My comparison, however, was not with a month ago but with a year ago.

    Private Employment Agencies
    Mr. Yatesasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the fact that an adequate service for catering employment is already provided by his employment exchanges, and in view of the unsatisfactory activities of fee-charging private employment agencies, if he will take powers to enable him to regulate their activities.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to control or abolish privately-owned employment agencies charging excessive fees.
    Sir W. Monckton: The question of the regulation of private employment agencies is under consideration.
    Mr. Yates: Will the Minister bear in mind that in some cases amounts of from £10 to £30 are being charged for obtaining work and that this is most undesirable? In view of the attitude of the International Labour Office, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to consider their viewpoint regarding the closing of such agencies?
    Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir. It is the desirability of bringing the matter into accord with Convention No. 96 of the

    1249
    International Labour Conference, 1949, that makes it necessary to consider at official level what ought to be done. We expect the report to be with Ministers shortly.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that a further reason for speedy action in this matter is the growing unemployment, which makes it necessary that this racket should be brought to an end as quickly as possible?
    Sir W. Monckton: I do not want to assume the racket until I have seen the report.
    Sir William Darling: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that these private, independent employment agencies are very much preferred by many classes of workers, and will he see that their independence is preserved?

  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Conscientious Objectors
    Mr. Cyril Benceasked the Minister of Labour the number of applications for exemption from the National Service Act, on grounds of conscience, received in Scotland, and the number rejected during the month of January.
    Sir W. Monckton: Four applications to be registered as conscientious objectors were heard during January, of which one was rejected. In two of the cases accepted, the men were made liable to be called up for non-combatant duties.
    Mr. Bence: Is the Minister aware that Mr. James Alexander Troup of Edinburgh, a qualified school teacher, who was accepted and registered as a conscientious objector, has been drafted to work for the Forestry Commission? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman of opinion that the employment of a school teacher in the Forestry Commission is of greater national importance than school teaching?
    Sir W. Monckton: I will, of course, look carefully into any individual case which the hon. Member brings to my notice. I point out, however, that the decision in this case rests not with me but with the tribunal, in whose hands Parliament laid it.

    Aircraft Apprentices
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Labour if he will exempt apprentices engaged in the aircraft industry from National Service.
    Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir but the possibility of allowing some measure of deferment in special cases is under examination.
    Air Commodore Harvey: How is the aircraft industry to produce what is expected of it if the men who are the most valuable are to be called up at the end of their training?
    Sir W. Monckton: My anxiety is to meet that difficulty as far as I can without impinging upon the desirability of keeping the universality of the call-up.
    Mr. M. Lindsay: While appreciating the importance of keeping the universality of the call-up, may I ask whether it is not much more important in present circumstances to get the highest possible aircraft production for defence purposes?
    Sir W. Monckton: It is for that reason that we propose to look into this matter in special cases. The reason why we want to do so on a limited scale is to avoid encouraging similar claims for other types of employment.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: Is the Minister aware that apprentices in the aircraft industry are in no way different from apprentices in other sections of engineering, and will he keep this in mind?
    Sir W. Monckton: It is only when they make a special difference that they are considered in the way I have indicated. I am well aware that apprentices in other branches of industry might also claim similar exemptions.

  SCOTLAND

    Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to provide means whereby a Scottish wife deserted by her husband can obtain in Scotland a maintenance order enforceable in British Dominions, Colonies and foreign countries.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): As I explained to the hon. and learned Member in a recent letter, there are formidable difficulties in the way of making reciprocal arrangements between Scotland and countries of the Commonwealth overseas for the making and enforcement of maintenance orders. Even greater difficulties would have to be overcome before such arrangements could be made between Scotland and foreign countries. I am afraid that I can hold out no hope of early legislation on the subject.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that great suffering and injustice is being done by the absence of any such provision? Surely he will take some steps to try to obviate that suffering and injustice?
    Mr. Stuart: I certainly wish to do so, but there are grave difficulties. I have already answered a Question on this subject on 4th December, and I shall be very glad to discuss it with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

    School Teachers
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to increase the number of certificated school teachers, and to retain science and mathematical teachers in the educational service of Scotland.
    Mr. J. Stuart: In order to increase the number of certificated teachers, I propose to continue the scheme of special recruitment started by my predecessor last August. It is having a satisfactory response. As regards the second part of the Question, I have no evidence that a greater proportion of the teachers of mathematics and science is leaving the educational service than of teachers of other subjects.
    Sir T. Moore: Is not the real solution, as I have said on many occasions, to give teachers an adequate salary with a proper relation to what they would get from private employers? After all, do not inducements apply to teachers as much as to the rest of us?
    Mr. John Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is of more advantage to the teaching profession to send teachers to do forestry work than to keep them in the schools?

    Information Office (Economies)
    Mr. James H. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what cuts are being made in the services at present provided by the Scottish Information Office.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The services provided by the Scottish Information Office are being reduced in accordance with the policy set out in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the Question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew, East (Major Guy Lloyd), on 29th January, 1952.
    Mr. Hoy: Can the Secretary of State be more explicit? What services for which he is responsible are to be cut as a result of this economy?
    Mr. Stuart: Yes, Sir. The Financial Secretary gave a detailed answer. As far as Scotland is concerned, it does involve discontinuance of films distribution by mobile vans and discontinuance of the Central Office of Information lecture service and a reduction of expenditure on exhibitions by approximately one-half.
    Mr. Hoy: In respect of the films service, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is very much appreciated by trade and industry and that the cost involved is not large? Would he reconsider his decision on this specific point?
    Mr. Stuart: It does not mean that there will be no films but that they will be given in the most economical places.

    Harbour Piers and Ferries Act
    Mr. J. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to amend Section 7 of the Harbour Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, so as to increase the maximum, below which a Provisional Order is not required, from £5,000 to £15,000.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I cannot promise amending legislation; but I am examining the possibility of shortening and simplifying the procedure involved in obtaining an Order under the Act.
    Mr. Grimond: When the Secretary of State considers this matter, will he bear in mind that it is quite illogical to limit local authorities on a particular matter when they are allowed to spend large sums in other ways, and will he also bear

    1253
    in mind that, owing to the change in the value of money, there is much waste of time and expense in promoting orders for comparatively minor schemes of pier and harbour construction?
    Mr. Stuart: I agree that the change in the value of money certainly makes a difference, but legislation and the time for it is another matter.

    Fishing Vessel "Blenheim" (Arrestment)
    Sir David Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the arrest of the motor fishing vessel, "Blenheim," in Thurso Harbour, at the instance of the Longhope lifeboat crew who are claiming property salvage on their own account, including expenses incurred by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution; and if he will, in the interests of food production and full employment, take steps to have this vessel released from arrest.
    Mr. J. Stuart: This matter is at present the subject of an action for declarator before the Court of Session and I have no authority to interfere. I understand that the arrestment could be withdrawn at any time by the defenders (who are not fishermen) giving a bond for £1,000, or consigning the money.
    Sir D. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of this fine old society and this very gallant crew to the fact that their action savours more of wrecking and piracy than of life saving? Will he take steps to ensure that it does not occur again?
    Mr. Stuart: I can only reply that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is a voluntary organisation for which I have no responsibility. This may be an example of private enterprise.

  HOUSING, SCOTLAND

    Subsidy Rates
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in a position to state the results of his discussions with the Scottish local authority associations about the revision of housing subsidies.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to my reply of 28th February to the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir).
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that this is a very urgent matter and that it is not merely replies in Parliament we want but something actively done to solve the problem?
    Mr. Stuart: The result of the discussions with the local authorities was announced in reply to the noble Lady to which I have just referred. It is in HANSARD.
    Mr. A. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of getting an analysis of the figures because, in documents circulated, local authorities seem to be at variance with the suggestions made in his statement and it would be useful to hon. Members if these differences could be cleared up?
    Mr. Stuart: If the right hon. Gentleman is in need of further information, I will of course supply it, but if he will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 28th February he will find the Exchequer contribution and the rates contribution under the new subsidy arrangements.
    Mr. William Ross: Have not the local authorities asked for further discussions on this matter?
    Mr. Stuart: Yes, I believe they have; that is the case.
    Mr. Hoy: If these local authorities have already expressed great dissatisfaction about the announcement made, that could not be as a result of agreement as announced in the right hon. Gentleman's original answer?
    Mr. Stuart: It is very difficult to give satisfaction in all quarters. I notice from criticisms that some people say it is too much and some say it is too little, but we will do our best to strike a balance.

    Stone Building
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will inquire into a reply by his Department of Health last 9th January to a request made last 19th November by the Lanarkshire County Council for permission to build a limited number of houses with stone fronts at an extra cost

    1255
    of £91 each, but with a saving of 5 per cent. in the number of bricks required; and whether he will reconsider the discouraging reply which was sent.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The Department actually agreed to the County Council's proposal, but if my hon. Friend will let me know in what respect he thinks the reply should be reconsidered, I shall have the matter examined.
    Mr. Maitland: May I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Mr. P. Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will instruct the Department of Health to prepare plans for the increased use of stone in housebuilding, particularly by means of standard-sized blocks cut at the quarry, and by designing housing types which use stone for load-bearing to permit the use of cheap materials for those parts of the building which are free from stress.
    Mr. J. Stuart: As a rule local authorities prefer to prepare their own plans, but I am passing my hon. Friend's suggestion as to standardisation to the Building Materials Committee of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) who are now considering how stone building in Scotland can be increased.
    Mr. Maitland: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that encouragement given to the quarrying industry will attract labour and possibly result in a speedier development of that side of the housebuilding programme?
    Mr. Stuart: I can assure my hon. Friend that I would very much like to see more stone building carried out. It is a matter of cost, time, and so on, but I would like to encourage it in every way I can.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (MEMBERS' LETTERS)
  Mr. W. R. Williamsasked the Prime Minister whether he will issue instructions that any replies sent to hon. Members shall be signed by the appropriate Minister or Parliamentary Secretary and not by private secretaries.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): It is generally understood that whenever possible Ministers will themselves sign letters to Members of Parliament on matters of importance.
  Mr. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been many instances lately where that has not occurred? Will he make quite sure that the general instruction, that apparently he is agreeable to, will be carried out and conformed to by all Ministers?
  The Prime Minister: Let us see how the opinions expressed today affect practice in the future.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE (TERMS OF REFERENCE)
  Mr. John Parkerasked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend such alteration of the terms of reference of the Royal Commission now sitting on Marriage and Divorce, so as to enable them also to consider and report on the present laws about illegitimate children.
  The Prime Minister: I am advised that it would not be desirable to extend the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce in the way the hon. Member suggests. The Commission has already a great deal of work to do and the law relating to illegitimate children is complicated and had better be studied separately in the light of the Royal Commission's recommendations on the aspects of family life which have already been referred to it.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Post-War Credits
    Mr. Sparksasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of post-war credits remaining unpaid; and how much has already been redeemed.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The total amount of post-war credit originally created was about £800 million. £202 million has been repaid to date or set off against arrears of tax under the arrangement announced on 29th October, 1946, leaving about £598 million still outstanding.
    Mr. Sparks: Can the Financial Secretary say whether his right hon. Friend would be prepared to make a further concession by way of repayment of postwar credits?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman must not expect me to anticipate, even by a few minutes, the Budget statement of my right hon. Friend.

    Foreign Travel (Currency Allowance)
    Mr. Kenneth Thompsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that full-rate charges are made in most Continental countries for fares and accommodation for children over 10 years of age; and if he will therefore make the currency allowance at the £25 limit available for travellers aged 10 and over.
    The Minister of State for Economic Affairs (Sir Arthur Salter): I appreciate the point raised by my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that it is impossible to make any concession in the present circumstances.
    Mr. Thompson: Is my right hon Friend aware that the present limit for children is causing very great concern both to parents and to educationalists, who find themselves unable to take children or parties of children abroad at a time when it would do the most good? Will he look at the matter again?
    Sir A. Salter: I have gone into this question with very considerable care and in consultation with representatives of the organisations concerned. I fully realise the point made by my hon. Friend, that it is not usual to make reductions of charges to children to as high an age as 15.
    Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Ministry of Education, and with active teachers who have found themselves gravely handicapped in arranging school parties for the holidays this year, before he reaches his final decision?
    Sir A. Salter: Yes, Sir. I have taken into account the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. I fully realise that the age of 15 is high for this distinction, but I also realise, as I think the House will in a very short time, the reasons which
    1258
    have been in our minds in considering no concession possible at this moment.

    Gift Parcels (Irish Republic)
    Mr. Harold Sutcliffeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Regulations are now in force as regards food parcels and other gifts sent personally from Eire to friends in this country.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Bona fide gifts from the Irish Republic which do not exceed 22 lb. in weight and which consist exclusively of foodstuffs, discarded apparel, medical supplies and soap are admitted free of import licence and Customs charges, with the exception that those containing canned fruits, dried fruits, chocolate and sugar confectionery are prohibited.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Can my right hon. Friend give any idea of the quantity of fruit and confectionery of this nature which are confiscated, and can he say what happens to them?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should want notice of that question.

    Sterling Area (Balance of Payments)
    Mr. M. Philips Priceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider taking steps to prevent in future financial disequilibrium arising between the sterling area and the European Payments Union.
    Sir A. Salter: The measures which we and other sterling area countries are taking to right our balance of payments will, I hope, have this effect.

    Canadian Loans
    Mr. Eric Johnsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the loans the United Kingdom has received from Canada, since 1939, which have not yet been repaid; the amount of principle and interest which is repayable annually in respect of these loans; and also the amount the United Kingdom has received in free gifts from Canada since 1939.
    Sir A. Salter: As the answer is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer (all amounts expressed in Canadian dollars):
    In 1942 the Canadian Parliament appropriated $1,000 million as a gift to the United Kingdom for the purchase of food, munitions and other requirements.
    In 1942 the Government of Canada made a loan of $700 million, free of interest, to the United Kingdom. Under agreements made between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Canada, dollars accruing from the sale by United Kingdom residents to persons not resident in the United Kingdom of Canadian market securities or from redemption are used in repayment of the loan, but the Canadian Government allow us to set off against the amount repayable in this way the cost of new direct investment in Canada by United Kingdom residents. By 31st December, 1951, the outstanding principal had been reduced to $222,656,798. The two Governments have agreed that the interest free provisions of the loan shall continue in force until 1st January, 1954.
    During the war, Canada provided under the Mutual Aid Programme munitions, food and other war supplies and services to the United Kingdom. The total aid given under this programme amounted to about $1,871 million.
    Under the terms of the Financial Agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Canada dated 6th March, 1946, the Government of Canada extended to the United Kingdom a line of credit of $1,250 million, repayable in fifty annual instalments, with interest at 2 per cent. per annum. A total of $1,185 million was drawn by the United Kingdom. The first annual payment in respect of interest and principal fell due on 31st December, 1951, and on that date payment was made $23,700,000 in respect of interest, and $14,010,255 in respect of principal. The amount now outstanding is $1,170,989,745.
    Under the terms of the 1946 Agreement indebtedness amounting to $425 million of the Government of the United Kingdom to Canada in respect of the Commonwealth Air Training plan was cancelled. Under a supplementary agreement all remaining claims arising out of the war were settled by a payment by the Government of the United Kingdom to the Government of Canada of $150 million.
    The foregoing does not include assistance offered by the Government of Canada to member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, including the United Kingdom, to further the common defence effort.

    London Aeroplanes, Limited
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will explain the circumstances in which the firm known as London Aeroplanes Limited were able to evade or avoid paying Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax to the sum of £98,374; and what period did this amount cover.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot give information about the taxation affairs of particular taxpayers.
    Sir T. Moore: But does not my hon. Friend think it very unfair that decent law-abiding citizens should be threatened by the Inland Revenue Department if they are a few weeks overdue, whereas these people and men like Sydney Stanley get away to a fantastic extent?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that it is a very well established principle not to give Parliamentary answers which disclose information about the individual affairs of individual taxpayers given to the Inland Revenue in confidence.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Training Schemes
    Mr. Douglas Houghtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will bear in mind the recommendations of the Assheton Report on Training in the Civil Service, Command Paper No. 6525, when considering cuts in central and departmental training schemes.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have had the recommendations of the Assheton Report constantly in mind in considering retrenchment in training schemes.
    Mr. Houghton: Does the hon. Gentleman think it a prudent course at the present moment to cut the training services in the Civil Service by half at a time when his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour is advising the general Advisory Council to strengthen and extend training services in industry?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not accept the implication of the supplementary question. The main fabric of the training system has been preserved.
    Mr. Austen Albu: Does the hon. Gentleman also consider that there are any advantages to be gained by making cuts in the Organisation and Methods Department of the Treasury?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is no system so perfect that will not repay scrutiny with a view to proper economy.

    Staff Reductions, Wales
    Mr. Tudor Watkinsasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many civil servants, both male and female, have been given notice to terminate their employment recently in Wales; what steps are being taken to recommend them for employment elsewhere; and whether the position may be reviewed where there is no alternative employment for such persons.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret that I do not possess the figures for which the hon. Member asks in the first part of his Question. Civil servants who are declared redundant are advised to register at a local office of the Ministry of Labour, where every assistance is given them to find other suitable employment.
    The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

  INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
  Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in order to encourage Government research and development establishments to undertake work for industry, he will reconsider the ruling whereby any money earned for such work is subtracted from the total of their Treasury grant.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. Because of the shortage of equipment and skilled manpower I do not consider that the change suggested would have the effect desired. It would, moreover, involve abandoning methods of accounting expressly preferred by the Public Accounts Committee.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is in the interests of long-term research and development that the partnership between industry and these research establishments should be fomented, and that this is one method employed in increasing that partnership?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not quarrel with the general principles of my hon. Friend, but the present shortage, both of manpower and of materials, would mean that further increased services to industry in this direction would involve a curtailment of the general research on behalf
  1262
  of the Government, which is perhaps the main purpose of these organisations.
  Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that research establishments, at Farnborough and elsewhere, give identical free services to many branches of industry which is greatly appreciated?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am certainly aware of that.

  U.S. FILMS (MUTUAL SECURITY AGENCY)
  Mr. Charles Royleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what future use is to be made of United States films and techniques, made available by the Mutual Security Agency, formerly distributed by the Government Film Unit.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Government are considering this in consultation with the Mutual Security Agency.
  Mr. Royle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great value of these films to productive enterprise and how they are being appreciated by all types of industry, and will he give all the encouragement he can to the continuance of their importation?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman has said.

  SOCIAL SURVEY REPORTS
  Mr. Albuasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will publish a list of the subjects investigated by the social survey during the last two years; and the Departments for whom the work was undertaken.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the social survey reports undertaken during the last two years, and of the Departments for whom they were undertaken.
  Mr. Albu: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these investigations have made a contribution towards the economy and efficiency of administration?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Some have in a considerable degree, and some perhaps in a rather less degree
  Following is the list:

  SUBJECTS INVESTIGATED BY SOCIAL SURVEY, 1950–1952

  Subject

  Description

  Commissioning Department

  Older People's Diets

  To investigate the nutrition of elderly people and by reference to other inquiries to show the association of diets and health amongst old people.

  Ministry of Health.

  Survey of Adolescents

  To investigate the educational and vocational background and the spare-time activities of the adolescents with a view to providing information relevant to the functions and interests of departments.

  Ministry of Labour and Service Departments.

  Recruitment to Civil Defence.

  This survey was carried out in order (a) to discover the general reaction to the subject of civil defence and the effectiveness of the publicity exhibited up to the date of the survey and (b) to decide which were the most effective lines to follow in future recruiting programmes.

  Home Office.

  Employment of Elderly Workers.

  To investigate the proportions of elderly people in employment, the nature of their occupations and associated factors as well as their attitudes to employment and remaining at work after retiring age.

  Ministry of Labour.

  Festival of Britain

  An inquiry into the state of knowledge of and opinion about the objects of the "Festival" with special reference to local activities.

  Festival of Britain Office.

  Medresco Hearing Aid

  To investigate the use made of the aid with view to improving the system of instruction or servicing.

  Ministry of Health.

  Utility and the Public

  A survey of the attitudes of the public towards the Utility Scheme.

  Board of Trade.

  Sound in Dwellings

  To investigate, under actual daily living conditions, the extent to which a new type of party wall reduced the amount of noise heard in local authority housing.

  D.S.I.R.

  Hamilton Housing Survey.

  An inquiry into the housing problems of older people.

  Department of Health for Scotland.

  Audience Reaction to the film "The Undefeated."

  To examine fears expressed by cinema exhibitors that this film about disabled ex-servicemen might upset audiences and have adverse effects on recruitment. The report showed these suggestions were unfounded, and led to wide commercial showing.

  C.O.I.

  Independent Traders Index.

  The enrolment of a panel of independent traders who would volunteer to give information about their monthly sales so that a sales index could be constructed.

  Board of Trade.

  Use of Stationery Supplies.

  To provide information about the use and supply of stationery in Government Offices for a review of the work of Stationery Office being undertaken by Organisation and Methods Division of the Treasury.

  Treasury.

  Young Children's Diets

  An inquiry to determine the nutritional level of children under the age of 5 years.

  Ministry of Health.

  Local Authority Tenants

  To investigate how far tenants of local authority houses in Scotland would be interested in purchasing their own houses or other local authority houses.

  Department of Health for Scotland.

  Audience Reaction

  To examine the reception and effects of three recruiting films exhibited in cinemas.

  C.O.I.

  Colonial Affairs

  To investigate public knowledge of Colonial Affairs

  Colonial Office.

  Telephone Directories

  To investigate the actual use made of London Directories with a view to deciding whether they could be withheld from subscribers without great inconvenience or greatly increasing calls on the directory inquiry service.

  General Post Office.

  Birmingham Productivity Exhibition

  An inquiry made to find out: (a) the nature of the audience at this exhibition; (b) the practical results accruing from their visit amongst a sample of visitors called on some three weeks later.

  C.O.I.

  Night Baking

  To investigate the possible effects on consumers of stopping the baking of bread at night with view to facilitating the work of the Departmental Committee on Night Baking.

  Ministry of Labour.

  Subject

  Description

  Commissioning Department

  Scientific Manpower

  A pilot study of the present distribution of science graduates made with view to showing whether the Scientific Civil Service is recruiting its necessary share of the better graduates, and obtaining the reasons given for not entering the Civil Service.

  D.S.I.R.

  Effects of a Local Road Safety Campaign.

  An inquiry designed to measure the effects of the campaign on road users' behaviour on the roads and their attitudes to road safety problems.

  Ministry of Transport.

  Welfare Foods

  An inquiry made to discover the extent to which mothers and expectant mothers make use of the Ministry of Food welfare products and the difficulties they have in obtaining them.

  Ministry of Food.

  Borstal Studies

  To analyse available information on the history and background of a sample of Borstal cases with view to tracing the effects of Borstal treatment and indentifying the classes of offenders most likely to respond to treatment.

  Home Office and Prison Commissioners.

  Parliament Past and Present.

  To examine the reception and effects of the exhibition designed to illustrate the history and functioning of Parliament.

  C.O.I.

  Domestic Heating

  To investigate fuel consumption and expenditure on heating in low cost dwellings with view to implementing the result of laboratory experimental work on heating.

  D.S.I.R.

  Diphtheria Immunisation

  To investigate new problems in the Diphtheria Immunisation with special reference to fears of the suggested association of poliomyelitis and diphtheria and the effects of temporary suspension of the campaign.

  Ministry of Health.

  Dissemination of Scientific and Technical Knowledge.

  A pilot study to measure the flow of scientific information to industry with view to improving the work of the Technical Information Service of D.S.I.R.

  D.S.I.R.

  Consumer Expenditure Series.

  To investigate spending habits in special fields in order to assist the compilation of published accounts of National Income and Expenditure and, in particular, to examine, on the basis of small experimental inquiries, the technical problems involved in conducting the forthcoming large scale official Cost of Living Budgetary inquiry.

  Central Statistical Office and Treasury.

  Survey of Sickness

  Statistical studies on a national scale designed to show the incidence of ill-health and injuries as well as the use made of the medical service.

  Registrar General's Office.

  Studies of Public Knowledge of the Economic Situation.

  Investigations into the extent of public understanding of the main economic issues and knowledge of the associated facts

  Treasury.

  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION
  Mr. A. Hargreavesasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what saving will be effected in a full financial year by discontinuing the Central Office of Information film service: and what number of staff is involved.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The saving effected, by the discontinuation of the Crown Film Unit, the Mobile Film Unit Distribution Service and the Theatrical Film Distribution Service will be approximately £375,000 per annum. The number of staff directly involved is 302.
  In addition some saving is to be expected from the system of charging for loans from the Central Film Library.
  Mr. Hargreavesasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what saving will be effected in a full financial year by closing down the Central Office of Information lecture service; and what number of staff is involved.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The saving will be approximately £70,000 per annum. The number of staff directly involved is 42.
  Mr. Hargreaves: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these services are very much appreciated in the smaller towns and villages and will he say whether the figures he has given apply to the United Kingdom as a whole, or do they exclude Scotland?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, the figures I have given are United Kingdom figures. With regard to the first part of the supplementary question I would ask the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that it is a question of what can properly be afforded in this direction in present circumstances.

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Mr. Speaker, I desire to raise with you, for the guidance of the House, a question relating to Private Notice Questions. This morning I sought your leave to ask the President of the Board of Trade, by Private Notice, a Question in the following terms:
"To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make about the effect on trade and employment, particularly in Lancashire, of the Australian Government's announced cut of 80 per cent. in its trade with the United Kingdom."
Mr. Speaker: It is against the rule for the hon. Member to read his Question. Perhaps he will put a question to me about it.
Mr. Silverman: I am sorry if that was not the right thing to do, but it would be difficult to make my point clear, unless the House were in possession of the terms of the Question because, after querying the matter in the ordinary way with the Table, you indicated to me that there were four Questions on the Order Paper relating to the same subject matter and that, therefore, in your opinion the matter would be improperly raised by Private Notice.
The point that I have to ask relates directly to the terms of my Question and to the terms of the Questions on the Order Paper. There were indeed four such Questions. Three of them related exclusively to what one might call minor questions about motorcars. The only
1268
one that had any direct relation to my own was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) who, indeed, sought to ask a Question on Thursday, not by Private Notice, about what action the President proposes to take arising out of the drastic results of this announcement.
My Question had nothing to do with drastic results or any results. I thought that it would be proper for the Minister to have an opportunity at a very early stage of making a general statement on the whole matter without any such criticism or opinion implied as there was in those Questions. Nobody doubted that the matter was of public importance. Nobody doubted that it was urgent, and I beg to submit very respectfully that my Question was not in conflict with the rule as defined in Erskine May.
Mr. Walter Fletcher: Further to that point of order and as I asked your leave, Mr. Speaker, 24 hours before the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S Silverman) to put a question by Private Notice of an even wider character than his but covering the same point, would you take into consideration the fact that the rule says that the Question has to be put down at the earliest possible moment. If, therefore, a Question was put down 24 hours before that put down by the hon. Member, surely it should take precedence.
Mr. Speaker: The rule is quite clear. It is that it is not proper to seek by a Private Notice Question to anticipate a Question on the Paper of which another hon. Member has given notice. Though it is true that none of the Questions on the Paper are in identical terms with that sought to be asked by the hon. Member, I came to the conclusion that these four Questions—and in particular the Question standing in the name of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke)—could not be answered without covering the points in the proposed Question of the hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I disallowed it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

BUDGET PROPOSALS
3.35 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): On Budget day the eyes of the nation are upon us, as we review the state of the economy over the past year, weigh up the prospects for the coming year and decide what course we should take. This year the task is even more important than usual. The issues we face—I hope together—are serious indeed. What we do will largely determine not only our economic outlook for next year, but our entire future. This is the mood in which I have approached my task and in which I feel sure that the Committee will listen to what I have to tell them

OUT-TURN OF 1951–52
I propose to begin my review of the year that is just ending, the financial year 1951–52, with a short summary of the Exchequer accounts. This summary will be brief, for the difficulties facing us today go far wider than these mere figures. One consequence of a Budget before the end of the financial year is, of course, that final receipts and expenditure up to 31st March are not yet known. The figures which will appear in the Financial Statement should prove reasonably accurate, but they must be treated as provisional. We have tried to make the Financial Statement as comprehensive as possible.
I estimate that by the end of the year we shall have spent about £4,070 million. This is less than the Budget estimate by about £120 million. Expenditure on Consolidated Fund services and sinking funds is likely to exceed the estimate by some £8 million. The shortfall arises entirely in the field of Supply services and is the result of a number of different factors. For reasons which the Committee know, defence expenditure in the year coming to an end will have
1270
fallen short of the estimate. At the same time, however, Ministry of Supply expenditure will have exceeded the original estimate by about £50 million. A large part of this will, in due course, be reimbursed by the Services in payment for finished equipment.
There have also been some Supplementary Estimates for strategic and trading stocks. The other Supplementary Estimates have been offset partly by the reduction in the Exchequer contribution to the National Insurance Fund, and partly by shortfalls in a number of Departmental Estimates.
Thus, total Revenue I now expect to be about £4,440 million, about £200 million above the Budget estimate. The biggest increase, perhaps about £100 million is in Customs and Excise duties, which are likely to yield about £1,755 million against an estimated £1,651 million. Most of this surplus is accounted for by the duties under the Import Duties Act, 1932, and the Purchase Tax, reflecting the sharp rise in prices over the year. On the Inland Revenue side, I expect an increase of about £70 million—an out-turn of perhaps £2,370 million against the estimate of £2,302 million. Most of this increase is attributable to the Income Tax, which will probably yield about £1,690 million compared with the estimate of £1,625 million. The yield of the other Inland Revenue duties will be reasonably close to the estimates.
As a result I now expect to have at the end of March, on the conventional basis, an "above the line" surplus of over £360 million, as against the figure of £39 million at which my predecessor arrived, before allowing, of course, for the reduction in the Exchequer contribution to the National Insurance Fund.

ECONOMIC BACKGROUND
The Exchequer, in a narrow sense, is thus doing well. How, then, has it happened that our general economic position declined so markedly? I would attempt to give the impressions I received to the Committee. In January, 1951, the late Government, faced with the new and heavy burden of defence, budgeted for a "significant fall" in civil investment at home, and some decline in civil consumption at home. Realising that this would not be enough, they accepted that there must be a decline in the balance of

1271
payments surplus. They set themselves, however, to maintain a balance, apart from strategic stockpiling, on the United Kingdom overall current account in the year before them.
In this year, there was one serious new factor, which made the penalty of failure more serious than at any time since the war. Marshall Aid had just been suspended, and the first repayment of the United States and Canadian loans was in sight. This meant the removal of the cushion of external assistance upon which our economy had rested since the end of the war. Failure to pay our way would quickly mean, therefore, drawing on the gold reserves.
Unfortunately, as one of my predecessors once remarked, "Great Expectations" was followed by "Bleak House." Over the year as a whole, the deficit on the balance of payments was over £400 million more than was bargained for. Some of this was due to events that could not have been foreseen. Invisible income fell below expectations, partly because of the loss of Abadan. The terms of trade proved worse than was forecast. But this is not the whole story.
The state of the internal economy was such as to hamper the expansion of exports and to stimulate an increase of imports. Production did not increase so much as was expected and the Budget failed to produce any general decline in personal consumption.
Instead of falling, the volume of civil investment rose substantially. On top of the defence burden, this put a heavy overload on the industries producing vehicles, engineering goods and other metal products. Order books grew longer than ever and the extra exports, which the world was ready to buy, did not go out. At the same time, other industries met with a slack or falling demand abroad. It was thus not surprising that the total volume of exports failed to expand as fast as the situation required.
The other big factor was the rise in imports. Compared with 1950, the increase in volume was about £300 million; but, because of higher prices, the total increase in the import bill was £1,100 million. The balance of payments deficit came next, as night follows day. In the year as a whole, we passed from an over-
1272
all surplus of £238 million in 1950 to a deficit of £516 million in 1951—a swing of no less than £750 million.
In fact, the deterioration was more serious still. Most of the deficit happened in the second half of the year; it was then running at the annual rate of over £800 million a year. The deficit with the non-sterling world was much greater still. In the first half of the year, it was running at an annual rate of about £325 million; in the second half, the annual rate was nearly £1,200 million.
This United Kingdom deficit in itself meant a severe drain on the gold reserves. The drain was all the greater because the position of the other sterling area countries was also getting worse. The prices of their main exports—rubber, tin, wool and so on—which had been so high in the winter of 1950–51 were falling to more normal levels, while their imports—the result of the earlier rise in incomes—were increasing.
As a result, most of them moved into substantial deficit, not only with ourselves, but with the non-sterling world. Under this double strain, the loss of gold gathered momentum. After increasing by £203 million in the first half of 1951, the reserves fell in the second half by £547 million. At the end of the year, they stood at only £835 million.
I must remind the Committee that these reserves are the foundation on which is built the whole structure of trade between the sterling area and the rest of the world. Events have shown that they must be adequate for the work they have to do. During 1951, with the tapering-off of Marshall Aid, a sterling area deficit with the rest of the world could be met only by credit with the European Payments Union or by drawing on the reserves.
Here, it is well to reflect on what would have happened if we had allowed things to drift. If the reserves had been allowed to run out, as I told the House before and now tell the Committee, we here in this island would, before the end of the year, have found ourselves unable to secure either our daily bread or the raw materials upon which both employment and production depend. There would have been expanding areas of real want and of growing unemployment.

EXTERNAL ACTION
This was the prospect which faced us when we took office. The United Kingdom was committed to a very large defence programme, with no certainty of continuing economic support from the United States or any other North Atlantic Power. Indeed, we had no assurance that support would, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the Defence debate, be
"on a scale in keeping with the defence burden undertaken by the late Prime Minister or with our needs."—[OFFICIAL., REPORT, 5th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 433.]
At the same time, we were faced with a large and growing United Kingdom deficit with the non-sterling world, including a formidable deficit with the dollar area. The sterling area as a whole was in major deficit with the non-sterling world, resulting in a drain on the gold and dollar reserves of a most perilous character.
I announced emergency action on 7th November. Imports were cut and the Bank rate was raised. In January, the Finance Ministers of the Commonwealth met together in London. Our objective was clear: to bring the sterling area as a whole into balance as quickly as possible. Any failure to do this could mean only the rapid exhaustion of the reserves and the disintegration of the sterling system with all that implies.
I described to the House on 29th January the plan which we prepared together We all agreed to recommend action, the cumulative effect of which would be that the sterling area as a whole would be in balance with the rest of the world in respect of the second half of 1952, including at least a balance with the dollar area.
I must, however, inform the Committee that the effect of these measures in checking the drain on the gold reserves has not yet had time to operate fully. In the third quarter of 1951, the loss of reserves was 598 million dollars, or 46 million dollars a week. In the last quarter of 1951, the loss was 934 million dollars. or, if we exclude—as we should to get a true comparison—the service on the United States and Canadian lines of credit, 58 million dollars a week. In January: it was 299 million dollars, and in February 266 million dollars—an average for the year so far of 63 million dollars a
1274
week. We have, in fact, lost 2,000 million dollars from the reserves since last June, and, at the end of February, they stood at 1,770 million dollars, or £632 million.
We can, in my view, confidently rely upon a considerable reduction in the rate of loss in the course of the next few weeks. But the future is uncertain, and the consequences of failure are dire. We are determined not to fail. No one can foresee the future, but, change as it may, we shall be ready to do whatever is required. That is why I recently came to the conclusion that the whole sterling area must set its sights appreciably higher.
The striking manner in which our fellow members of the Commonwealth have answered my further appeal reminds one of their moving response in more than one war. Together, we shall win through again. South Africa's response was immediate and cordial, and I am satisfied that we will be able to earn at least £50 million of her gold, and perhaps substantially more, for the central reserves during 1952. Over the week-end, the voice of Australia has rung clear. The United Kingdom must suffer from the drastic effects of Australia's severe and timely action to save an economy swollen by the recent boom in wool prices and now threatened by the consequences of smaller receipts from her staple industry, coinciding with a period of exceptional development.
I share the regret expressed by the Prime Minister of Australia that it is necessary temporarily to restrict imports from the United Kingdom, and I trust that the recovery in Australia's balance of payments will soon allow her to remove these restrictions. Hon. Members will note—
Mr. Sydney Silverman rose—
Mr. Butler: I have foreseen the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because my next phrase meets him
Hon. Members will note that later in my speech I shall have to take account of this new factor as it affects our prospects. I have had stirring answers from that stalwart leader, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and from my friends the Finance Ministers of India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Southern Rhodesia. They have each told me of their special difficulties.

1275
All these Commonwealth countries, together with the colonial territories whose contribution to the economy of the sterling area is so vitally important, are taking determined action to ensure that the sterling area as a whole is not merely in balance with the rest of the world, as we planned together when we met in January, but will be in surplus with the rest of the world in the latter half of 1952. These are aims far more comprehensive than ever before adopted by the sterling Commonwealth.
I have also received a message from the Minister of Finance of the Irish Republic indicating his Government's understanding of the gravity of the situation and their determination to play their part in resolving it. He will, I understand, be making a statement in his own Parliament tomorrow, just as, I understand, some of my colleagues will also be making statements in their own town and their own place.
The British Government have decided to take further measures to match this story. On 29th January I announced that our part in the Commonwealth Finance Ministers plan was to reduce our deficit with the non-sterling world to £100 million in the second half of 1952. Our part in the new effort is to eliminate the United Kingdom deficit with the non-sterling world in the second half of 1952, after taking into account such defence aid as we may receive from the United States.
How do we set about this and achieve it? As for imports—we are already very tight-drawn. Even in 1951 the volume of imports was no more than 90–95 per cent. of that of 1938. Yet our population is now 6 per cent. greater than it was then and our industrial production, mostly based on imported material, is more than 40 per cent. greater. Clearly, there are no great margins here.
Nevertheless, we have now decided further to reduce the 1952 import programme by again cutting our purchases. In carrying out these further cuts, the nature of which, for commercial reasons, I cannot disclose, we shall ensure that the essential needs of industry are met, and that stocks are not reduced below what we consider to be a reasonable and safe level. We have also had to consider what savings we can make in our imports
1276
from Western Europe. These have in large part—as the right hon. Gentleman opposite drew our attention in a letter to "The Times"—to be settled in gold, now that we have nearly exhausted our quota of credit in the European Payments Union.
A number of hon. Members have represented recently that further cuts should be made in our less essential imports from Western Europe. The scope, however, is severely limited. We could not hope to go on selling large quantities of manufactured consumer goods to Western Europe if we were to restrict our imports from them more than is absolutely necessary owing to our balance of payments situation. Quite apart from our close political ties with our Continental neighbours, it is essential in our own economic and commercial interest to maintain trade at the highest level we can afford.
We must remember, too, that some of our friends in Europe, and I refer here particularly to the French, have their own critical balance of payments problems here and now and look to this country as a traditional market for their staple exports, such as wines. In these circumstances, it is our wish, but also wise in view of present disequilibrium in Europe, to avoid further severe cuts in our imports from those sources.
Yet we have to plan to live within our means. The Government have therefore decided to withdraw the Open General Licences for a further list of selected goods so as to bring the trade under control. The extent to which this control will have to be exercised depends on how our position develops. This list has been prepared by careful selection in the light of the needs of our European friends as well as our own. Particulars of the goods brought under control will be published tonight by the Board of Trade. Goods already on their way to us will be admitted freely, and wherever goods are the subject of firm contracts already entered into, we shall issue the necessary licences. Arrangements for the issue of licences for new business will be worked out during the next few weeks.
The effect then, the Committee will wish to know, of all the various import cuts we have made, which will amount to about another £100 million, will be to reduce the value of our imports in

1277
1952 from all sources, assuming that prices are much the same as they were at the beginning of the year, to about £3,150 million. This is a reduction of about 10 per cent. on the value of imports in the year 1951, and of over 15 per cent. on the annual rate in the second half of 1951. I give these figures specifically because there appears to be some doubt about the basis of the previous cuts.
At the same time, to deal with this emergency, we propose two further steps. We are suspending for the present the issue of duty-free licences, under Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1932, for the import of machinery. No applications posted after today will be considered. This is another emergency measure. We recognise that there is a long-term problem here, and we propose to examine it, in consultation with industry.

PURCHASE TAX AND UTILITY
Secondly, we propose to remove an obstacle which up to now has stood in the way of the full development of our export trade, particularly in the vital field of textiles. We shall do this by accepting the main recommendation of the Report of the Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir William Douglas. As this Committee was appointed by my predecessor, its parentage, chairmanship and membership is therefore presumably above reproach. Its Report, which was unanimous, puts forward a means of meeting the most frequent criticism made by exporters about the Purchase Tax arrangements in the utility field.
This arises from the fact that the main demand at home has been for utility grades, which have enjoyed complete tax exemption. An article which is just too expensive to qualify as utility has had practically no sale at home because of the big jump in the retail price caused by the addition of the tax. But many such articles, the Douglas Committee was assured, would command a ready sale abroad, if there were also sufficient home demand to make their production an economic proposition.
The effect of the new scheme is to remove the sudden jump in price and to substitute an evenly graduated tax. The scheme will remove a serious handicap under which our exporters have been labouring. It will also fulfil our international obligations and carry out an
1278
undertaking given in Geneva by the ex-President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross), in September last year. We are, therefore, seeking continuity of policy and pledge in this matter. At the same time, the great range of cheaper utility goods will remain untaxed.
I am taking the opportunity to make a further improvement on the present arrangements, in order to help farm and other workers as well as housewives. Certain goods, including such essential items as rubber boots, oil baize and a wide range of industrial protective clothing have hitherto been outside the utility schemes and have, therefore, been subject to Purchase Tax. I am now bringing them into the new scheme, with the result that on many of them no tax at all will be payable, while on the rest it will be reduced.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will enlarge on these matters in the Budget debates, and will describe his plans for the future of utility. As far as I am concerned the alterations in Purchase Tax are unlikely to raise any additional revenue this year.
These measures—the further import cuts and the other proposals I have just announced—form part of the third instalment of our emergency plan to reach our objective—balance with the non-sterling world in the second half of 1952. But this is not enough. We have felt the first rush of the storm and to lighten the ship we have had to throw a good deal overboard. We must now look to our rig and take in some sail.

EFFECT ON INTERNAL ECONOMY
In other words, we must divert some resources from use at home. It is customary in most Budget speeches to go deeply into economics and if I do not do that it may partly be through a lack of ability and training such as was so ably shown by my predecessor. But it may also be because, after a great deal of labour, I have attempted to try to put this section, which, if it were a symphony, might be regarded as the intellectual section of the piece, in what economists call "real terms," namely, a description of how we stand with regard to our resources.
I must emphasise at the outset that, although this means an attempt to

1279
measure statistically the various elements in the equation we have to consider, the figures can be no more than estimates, and the final result, as indeed it should be with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is an act of judgment. In order to carry out our balance of payments objective, it will be necessary for us to free resources sufficient to improve the United Kingdom's overall balance on current account, excluding defence aid from the United States, by at least £600 million in 1952–53 compared with 1951–52. In terms of money—and these are terms of money—the task looks enormous. It is, but the Committee should realise its actual size is not so great as some commentators have thought.
We can count, after all, on some improvement in our net invisible earnings, from shipping, insurance, oil and so forth which have always been and must always be a vital feature of British prosperity. I think it fair to assume that the terms of trade will be, as at present, more favourable than in the year just ending. These two factors should help us financially to the extent of between £200 and £250 million and their contribution can be deducted from the financial task.
Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the amount for each of them?
Mr. Butler: If the right hon. Gentleman will read carefully what I have said he will see the ratio of the two. I cannot give the actual figures for the earnings of shipping, oil and insurance. I should say myself that the invisibles would be about £150 million. The remainder—that is, £350 million to £400 million at 1951–52 prices—represents the volume of the resources we must devote, in the coming year, to our balance of payments objective.
I must deal first with imports. The volume of imports will be heavily reduced, by more than £300 million. In 1951–52, as the Committee knows, the stock of imported supplies increased greatly; in 1952–53 there is likely to be some fall in stocks overall. The result is that the volume of imports available for use in 1952–53 will be about £150 million less than in 1951–52.
In addition, we shall have to provide for a net increase of about £50 million
1280
in the volume of exports. Some may think that this is a small figure. But we must remember that our exports of consumer goods to the sterling area will probably decline. Australia has just decided on a sharp cut in imports from us, particularly of consumer goods, as a consequence of the combined plan for bringing the sterling area into balance. As part of the general plan we ourselves must sell very much more than before in non-sterling markets. This means supplying what those markets want, at the price, and at the time, they want.
At present, one of the strongest demands is for capital goods—the products of our metal-using industries. These are precisely the products which it is most difficult for us to spare, but which we must spare if we are to export and balance our payments. It means a tremendous task for our exporters. We must do everything in our power to help them and so safeguard the employment of our people.
I have now given the Committee the main factors on the external side. A big decline in imports, offset, however, to a substantial extent by a change in the stock position: some expansion in total exports, which will involve a very large expansion in non-sterling markets for which so far as we can we must try to find more capital goods. And this in the face of a decline in exports of consumer goods to sterling area markets.
The Committee should realise it, and the country should understand that this will mean a really major diversion of effort if we are to survive and pay our way. The precise magnitude of all these changes is, of course, very uncertain. But I believe that, on balance, we shall have to make do, for other uses at home, with a volume of resources about £200 million less than last year.
The next claim is the defence programme. This will take a greater volume of resources in the coming year. The instalment originally planned for the year would have put a very heavy burden on the metal-using industries, and this has had to be adjusted. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has recently given a very full review of the state and prospects of this programme, and of the adjustments that have already been made.

1281
These adjustments will increase our ability to export metal goods. All that I need say now is that, taking defence as a whole, I judge that the effect of the programme embodied in the Estimates—to which I shall shortly be turning—will be to increase the claim upon resources in the coming year by over £200 million. So that is, in resources, £200 million for the balance of payments over £200 million for defence; over £400 million in all. That is the total, so far, of the additional claims on our resources. I do not think we can hope to meet all this out of an increase in production at home.
Between 1950 and 1951 the national output increased by about £250 million at constant prices. But towards the end of the year production was severely hampered by the shortage of steel. Before long we shall have extra supplies of steel from the United States. This should enable the upward movement to be resumed. It is more than usually hazardous to estimate the increase this year, when we are faced with the task of finding alternative markets for a substantial volume of exports. We must work for an increase in volume of about the same or more than last year. My Budget, when it is revealed in full, is designed to help us get this.
But this alone will not fill the gap. We must, therefore, reduce our claims at home. One of these is Government civil expenditure, which we have cut significantly. In terms of resources this claim, thanks to the economies we have made, will be over £50 million less than last year. Next comes the claim of investment, and particularly investment in plant and machinery. This is a most important field. In the long run our factories must have the equipment they need for expansion and the improvement of efficiency. But in view of the overriding need for exports of precisely those goods where the investment demand is heaviest—namely engineering products—we must take decisive steps to reduce home investment substantially.
The late Government tried more than once by physical controls and fiscal measures to check home investment; but they always failed in the face of the overwhelming monetary demand. The world will not believe that we are serious in our determination to leave no weapon
1282
unused to promote exports and defend the pound unless in this field we take action that is, and is seen to be, decisive.

MONETARY POLICY
Events have justified the monetary policy adopted last November. But the time has now come when a reinforcement of that policy is necessary to support our other measures. Accordingly, the Bank of England have today, with my approval, raised the Bank rate from 2½ per cent. to 4 per cent. This is a sharp upward movement and will, I am sure, show to the world that we not only recognise the very serious situation of the country but are determined to deal with it by whatever firm measures may be necessary, however unwelcome they may be. This rise to a comparatively high level of money rates is, I believe, in present circumstances, an essential part of our campaign to fortify the currency. It will play an important part in our effort to improve our balance of payments. One of the surest ways to make sterling stronger is to make it scarcer, and that is what we intend to do.
Further, if that policy is to be successful, we cannot, in present circumstances, afford to be more generous in giving credit to traders outside the United Kingdom than is strictly justified by our various overseas interests. Action is being taken in various ways; one example was the recent reduction of the normal term of acceptance credits from 120 days to the pre-war term of 90 days: and for similar reasons it is proposed to restrict re-finance facilities.
Internally, the general effect of this rise in Bank rate should be a further reminder to both lenders and borrowers of the need for caution and economy in our present circumstances. The various directives which I have issued requesting that, within the scope of a tighter credit policy, priority should be given to defence, exports, agricultural expansion, and so forth, will, of course, continue to stand.
I do not expect this rise to be popular, either in financial or industrial circles, or anywhere else. The use of the Bank rate—and I must remind the Committee of the position in which our country is in in regard to our resources—can make an important contribution towards the right economic climate, particularly towards

1283
the diversion of resources from investment, above all, to export. I would console the Committee by reminding them that the Bank rate is a flexible instrument, and I give this assurance: it will be watched to ensure that its operation brings about conditions helpful to the strength of our economy. A healthy balance of payments is for our country the essential safeguard, in the long term, of the high and stable level of employment at which we all aim. The Bank rate will reinforce the other factors already operating to restrict investment at home—the suspension of the initial allowances introduced by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) as from next month, the physical controls over steel allocations, and the voluntary arrangements between the Ministry of Supply and Manufacturers to decide how much production should be devoted to the export trade.
I expect the cumulative effect of all these measures taken together to lead to a marked reduction in civil investment, particularly in plant and machinery, and in stocks. To some extent this may be offset by an increase in investment for defence and in building; but in total I have no doubt that we can confidently expect a marked contribution to the freeing of resources for our balance of payments. I am allowing for a saving of at least £100 million here, but in view of the great difficulty of exporting other goods, I hope we shall save even more.

GENERAL ECONOMIC CONCLUSION
We can now sum up. To meet the overriding needs of the balance of payments, and in the light of the probable trend of production, we have adjusted the defence programme, reduced our civil expenditure and have taken a series of steps to bring about a major decline in investment at home. It follows that even if we attain the same increase in production as last year no more than the same amount of resources as last year can be spared for the ordinary civil consumer at home. I judge that these changes in the distribution of our resources are both necessary and sufficient. It has been argued that we should make more severe and general cuts in consumption either instead of or in addition to the other cuts we are making. The account I have given of the external conditions facing us,
1284
especially in the sterling area, will explain why I have rejected this conclusion. The savings in resources which I have described are those which will contribute most effectively to increasing our exports.
Many industries producing consumer goods are already faced with a slack demand at home. They now face further very severe cuts in their exports to the sterling area. They will have to increase substantially their exports to the non-sterling world—in difficult selling conditions—if they are to keep up their production and employment. To add to the difficulties of these industries by depressing home demand even further would result not in still higher exports, but in a further reduction of activity and employment, which we would all deplore. That is why I have come to the decision which I have just stated.
I now come to the crucial question for the general strategy of the Budget itself. If the home consumer is to have no more of our resources than last year, we must see to it that his purchasing power as a whole is no more than sufficient for this purpose. An important element in this is the general level of taxation. This brings me to the prospect for Government expenditure and revenue in the coming year.

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE IN 1952–53
The estimated total of ordinary expenditure in 1952–53 is £4,240 million—that is £43 million more than the original Estimates for 1951–52 and £82 million more than the Estimates as revised after the last Budget. One half of this is attributable to the Debt Charge and other Consolidated Fund services. The increase of just over £40 million in Supply services consists of an increase of over £60 million in total net expenditure on defence preparations, offset by a net decline in civil expenditure of over £20 million.
I will devote a few moments to analysing these in turn. Under defence preparations I include, first, the Service Estimates, which stand at a net figure of £1,377 million. As the Committee are aware, this represents some slowing down compared with what was projected for the coming year under the original programme. The reasons for this were fully explained to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I need not elaborate them now. To this figure of £1,377 million we must add Civil Defence

1285
at just over £45 million, giving a total so far of nearly £1,425 million, an increase of £130 million over the current year's Estimates and margin for supplementaries.
Assistance for the development of industrial capacity in connection with defence stands at £65 million compared with £48 million in the last Budget, but the provision for strategic stockpiling is reduced from £143 million to £61 million in the current year. The reasons for which we have reluctantly had to take these decisions are only too well known to hon. Members. This gives us a total of about £1,550 million for defence preparations in the broad sense, and shows a net increase of over £60 million on the figure, under £1,490 million, provided for 1951–52.
I turn now to civil expenditure. Miscellaneous supply and trading services, for which I have provided £94 million, are up on the last Budget by £30 million; this is accounted for by the Post Office cash deficit of £14 million, increased civil expenditure by the Ministry of Supply and changes in the stocks and debtor-creditor position of the Ministry of Food. The Exchequer contribution to the National Insurance Fund, at £69 million, takes credit for a full year's reduction in that contribution and is, therefore, down by another £40 million. That leaves me with the remainder of our ordinary expenditure—that is, the normal civil expenditure to which I have directed the attention of hon. Members during our two previous debates on the subject, and to which our efforts at economy have been mainly devoted.
I told the House on 29th January that we were holding this expenditure at about this year's figure, and we have done so. The figure is £1,903 million, or just over £10 million less than the corresponding figure for the current year, and that despite a considerable rise in costs.
It is worth looking a little more closely at these figures, which can be divided into social services, food subsidies, the balance of ordinary civil expenditure and so forth. The social services stand at £1,471 million, against this year's revised estimates of £1,454 million—£17 million more. The National Health Service, at £393 million, excluding the Civil Defence part of it, is down by £5 million. Education, including universities, is up by nearly £8 million at £259 million. This,
1286
I hope, is a sufficient answer to those who consider that I am leading a drive towards illiteracy, or engaged in cutting the throat of a child of my own creation.
The other social services at £819 million, are up by £14 million. Most of this increase is due to a rise in Exchequer contributions to local revenues and to the increased National Assistance rates announced last year. The balance of civil expenditure, comprising every kind of service, is down. It stands at £432 million, a reduction of over £30 million.
Sir Waldron Smithers: Not enough.
Mr. Butler: Perhaps my hon. Friend would take account of some of the other economies to which I have been referring and will add up the figures afterwards.
This is a definite achievement, even greater in real terms because of the increased prices that have occurred since last year. It has not been done solely by the few big measures which have been separately mentioned to the House, or by the disappearance of items such as the Festival of Britain. In every sector there has been a deliberate cutting back of services, at the cost of many sacrifices, I agree, in the general interest—coast protection, new Government works, grants-in-aid to many useful bodies, are only a few examples chosen at random. And to keep this up we need a sustained effort to put economy first: an effort which my colleagues have agreed to make, and in which I ask all local authorities and other public bodies to share to the full. I cannot stress sufficiently the importance of economy in the sphere of local government as well as national Government.

REVENUE IN 1952–53
Against this, I estimate that at current tax rates the total revenue will be £4,778 million, an increase of £338 million over the estimated out-turn of the current year. The increase is more than accounted for by Inland Revenue duties which, at £2,800 million, will yield about £430 million more than this year's expected out-turn. The yield of the Income Tax next year I put at £1,980 million, an increase of nearly £300 million. This is due in part to the big increase in company profits which occurred in 1951 and will come under charge to Income Tax in 1952, and in part to the higher level of the wage and salary bill. The suspension of the

1287
initial allowances, which operates from 6th April next, will not affect the tax payable in the coming year. The Profits Tax will also show a big increase in yield in 1952–53, resulting partly from the increase in company profits and partly from the increase to 50 per cent, in the distributed rate of Profits Tax made in the last Budget. I put the yield at £460 million, an increase of about £150 million.
The revenue from the Customs and Excise duties, on the other hand, I put at £1,750 million, about the same figure as for the present year. The principal items in the total for 1952–53 are: tobacco, no less than £605 million; beer and other alcoholic drinks, £394 million; Purchase Tax, £340 million; oil, £205 million; Import Duties Act, £80 million; Entertainments Duty, £47 million; and betting, £26 million. Since practically no revenue is expected next year from surplus stores, and considerably less from surplus receipts of trading services, the net increase in total revenue is reduced to' about £338 million.
Taking revenue and expenditure together, this means that I expect an "above the line" surplus, on the conventional basis of accounting, of no less than £538 million. On the alternative classification the surplus is £687 million, compared with £603 million on the provisional out-turn of the current year.

THE BUDGET SURPLUS
The accounts then show another big surplus in prospect. The question which the Committee will want answered is, should I increase it, should I reduce it, or should I leave it broadly as it is? The answer depends, as the Committee knows, on a proper assessment of what taxation has got to do. Its job is not merely to balance the Government's expenditure. It has a part to play in so regulating the purchasing power available to the community as a whole that this purchasing power does not outrun the amount of goods and services available.
My previous conclusion was that in order to achieve our objectives, no more than the same amount of resources as last year can be spared for the ordinary civil consumer at home. The question now is whether I need take action by way of taxation to prevent consumers seeking
1288
to buy in the coming year more than they have done this year.
I propose to give the Committee only the bare outline of the considerations which I have taken into account. As everyone knows, consumer goods already cost a good deal more than they did a year ago. This means about another £400 million more on the bill for the same amount of goods and services. Incomes, of course, have risen too, but I judge that if I leave the Budget surplus broadly where it is, the money people will have to spend in the coming year will, for reasons I have already given, only be just about enough to pay for the goods that are likely to be available if exports expand as we hope.
I have not allowed for any great increase in personal saving in the coming year. But I should like to stress the importance of National Savings. The fine work done by all members of the National Savings Movement is recognised by all Members of the Committee. I believe in savings, and I think the Committee believe in savings. I believe that what I am doing will give the Movement a great new opportunity, of which I hope it and its distinguished Chairman and members will take advantage.

GENERAL BUDGETARY CONCLUSION
Let me now sum up my proposals as far as we have got. In order to achieve our balance of payments objective and meet the needs of defence we have to reduce Government civil expenditure, cut back sharply on civil investment and make do with no more for personal consumption than last year. To prevent consumption increasing I must keep the Budget surplus substantially unchanged.
It is on this foundation that I shall base my Budget proposals; and with full recognition of the fact that high Government expenditure accompanied by high taxation themselves have an inflationary effect. In this country of ours commitments have been piled on commitments, and taxation has been raised to the ceiling. This country has taken on far too much at once, as everybody who looks at us from outside would agree. So, if this Budget is to fulfil its main function—to restore confidence in the pound—it must further reduce Government expenditure and make a significant start in reducing taxation. If I am

1289
successful, a Chancellor from now on will have more room for manoeuvre and will not find the economy crammed right up against the ceiling.
I am, therefore, asking that the nation should throw off some of its crippling load of expenses and taxes, and should go into action with its loins girt, inspired by the sense that if we work harder we can earn more, or that if we are in need or reach old age we shall be cared for. We must also be satisfied that the rewards of effort are fair, and that undue profits are not made out of the nation's necessities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Fortified by that support from both sides of the Committee, I now approach the aspect of the question to which I turn first, namely, the profits which are being made by certain sections of the community as a result of the defence programme.

EXCESS PROFITS TAX
I have already made it plain, that it is our intention that an Excess Profits Tax should operate from 1st January of this year. At a time like this sacrifices should be equally borne. We are not prepared to see excessive profits being made as a result of the injection of rearmament into the economy. The new tax, which I propose to call the Excess Profits Levy to distinguish it from the Excess Profits Tax of the last war, will be general in its application and not confined to concerns on armament contracts. Details of the new levy will appear in the Financial Statement. I will, therefore, confine myself to giving the Committee a brief outline of the main provisions we propose, but before doing so I must tell the Committee at once that I propose to simplify the new levy and to avoid the delay, complications and waste of manhours involved in the old E.P.T.
The levy will apply to companies and other bodies, and will not extend to individuals and partnerships, who have to pay Surtax as well as Income Tax, which. I think, can well look after their problem. The new levy will be charged on the amounts by which current profits exceed standard profits. The normal standard will be the average of the profits of the three years 1947, 1948 and 1949. I am not prepared to bring into the average the profits of 1950, and still
1290
less those of 1951. The profits of both these years were inflated by the events following the outbreak of the Korean war.
If the profits of any one or two of the standard years were unduly low the company may instead bring into the average 8 per cent. on its paid up share capital. If the profits of all three standard years were unduly low, the company may take 10 per cent. on its paid up share capital. For new businesses set up after the middle of the standard period, the standard will be 10 per cent. on the paid up share capital. For director-controlled companies an additional 2 per cent. will be given. There will be a minimum standard of £2,000.
During the last war the Excess Profits Tax was allowed as a deduction in computing the Income Tax profits. This meant that the Income Tax assessments could not be settled until the Excess Profits Tax had been determined. I now propose to impose the new levy at net rates and not as a deduction in computing Income Tax profits.
During the last war the Excess Profits Tax was charged for the greater part of the period at 100 per cent. As, however, the E.P.T. paid was allowed as a deduction in computing the profits for Income Tax purposes, for every £100 paid in E.P.T. there was a reduction of £50 in the Income Tax bill. The same result would, therefore, have been achieved had the E.P.T. been imposed at 50 per cent., and no deduction allowed in computing the Income Tax profits. This is the line that I would propose taking on the present occasion.
At the end of the war the rate of the old E.P.T. was reduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) to 60 per cent. gross, which is equal to 30 per cent. net. I am glad to find one example of the right hon. Gentleman which I can follow. In my opinion this is the right rate at which to charge an Excess Profits Levy in peace-time—particularly having regard to the effect of a 100 per cent. E.P.T. in encouraging waste and extravagance. I propose, therefore, that the new Excess Profits Levy should be charged at 30 per cent. net.
To meet cases of hardship, I propose that a ceiling should be placed on the Excess Profits Levy chargeable. This

1291
ceiling will be 18 per cent, of the total profits; in other words, the Excess Profits Levy payable will be 30 per cent. of the excess profits, or 18 per cent. of the total profits, whichever is the less. [An HON. MEMBER: "Far too low."] Wait a minute.
During the last war, if the Excess Profits Tax was payable the Profits Tax ceased to be charged. We cannot be so generous this time. It would, however, be asking too much that industry should carry the Excess Profits Levy in addition to the Profits Tax at the present very high rates. I propose, therefore, that some compensating reduction should be made in the Profits Tax as a corollary of the introduction of the Levy. The present rates of 10 per cent. on the reserve and 50 per cent. on the dividend are equivalent, approximately, to net rates of 5 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively.
I propose to reduce these rates to 2½ per cent. net and 17½ per cent. net. Profits Tax at these new rates will not be deductible in computing Income Tax profits. I have loaded the reduction, as the Committee may observe, in favour of those who increase their reserves. Thus we fulfil the promise we gave in our Election statement to reduce the tax on profits ploughed back into the business.
I can now sum up my proposals in this way. I do not think that they will disappoint hon. Members. On its standard profits a company will, from 1st January, pay 50 per cent., that is, Income Tax at 47½ per cent., together with Profits Tax at 2½ per cent. On any sums distributed it will pay an additional 15 per cent. (that is, the difference between the 17½ per cent. and the 2½ per cent.). On its Excess Profits it will pay 80 per cent., that is, Income Tax at 47½ per cent., together with Profits Tax at 2½ per cent., together with Excess Profits Levy at 30 per cent. On any sums distributed it will pay an additional 15 per cent.
The effect of the overriding maximum will be to ensure that in the case, for example, where one-third of the profit is distributed, the total tax bill—that is Income Tax, Profits Tax and Excess Profits Levy combined, will not exceed 73 per cent. of the total profit.
I think the Committee will agree that we are thus virtually taking away any
1292
excess profits made. Thus we ensure that companies will adopt a very cautious policy on dividends.
Taking account of the compensating reductions I have proposed in the Profits Tax, the net additional yield of these proposals will be about £100 million in a full year. The yield in the coming financial year will be small, about £1 million only.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is that over and above last year, or over and above what this year would have been apart from this?
Mr. Butler: This is over and above any previous total reached. It is an extra additional taxation of £100 million, extra to what we had before.
No definite time limit can be announced for the operation of the Levy, but it must continue during the period of the emergency. The proposal I have just made is designed to be just, and to produce a considerable revenue next year.

MINOR REFORMS
Before I consider how we can raise or save some money this year there are a number of minor reforms to be mentioned. The Finance Bill will, in any case, be very long this year, and so I cannot do as much as I should have liked. I have, therefore, been able to take only the most urgent of the recommendations from the Report of the Millard Tucker Committee.
For example, United Kingdom mining ventures in the Colonies and elsewhere overseas will be helped in various ways. Businesses will be able to set off losses against subsequent profits without time limit. Brewers will no longer get a special deduction for tax purposes when they let tied houses for less than their full value. I am also revising the arrangements for relief from Estate Duty on the estates of members of the Forces. The present distinction between lower and higher ranks is quite unjustifiable. My proposal is to treat all ranks alike and, broadly speaking, to give total exemption from Estate Duty in time of war or in warlike operations and no relief at all in time of peace.
Another small matter. Stamp duty on conveyances of small property other than stocks or marketable securities will be reduced. Where the price does not exceed £3,000 the duty will be reduced to

1293
1 per cent. and where the price lies between £3,000 and £3,450 there will be some relief from the 2 per cent. now chargeable. Further, the relief from surtax granted to Lloyd's in 1949 will be extended, anomalies relating to allowances for plant, machinery and patents will be removed, and the taxation position of radio relay companies and bodies such as the British Wool Marketing Board will be dealt with.
A technical defect in the law on Surtax will be corrected. A gap in our defences against avoidance of Estate Duty will be closed. An ingenious method of avoiding Pool Betting Duty will be stopped. A hardship arising from the method of assessing certain types of investment income will be relieved. The net effect of all these minor reforms is a loss of about £2 million in 1952–53. and about £4 million in a full year.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY
As for the Entertainments Duty, we have just completed the review which hon. Members asked for last year, and I should like to thank everyone who has helped us with it. I am specially grateful to the cinema industry for the ingenious scheme they have put forward. Unfortunately from my point of view, it had two major defects—it cost several million pounds and would have meant increasing expenditure on American films.
One of the main points in last year's debates concerned speedway racing—which together with other racing up to now has paid the full rates, although other sports have the advantage of the reduced rate. I shall deal with this in the following way. I now propose a new scale, in between the two present ones for all kinds of sport. In general, it will be rather less than half way between the present scales, and will give real relief to sports now on the full scale including speedway racing. I hope that admission prices can now be reduced. I am afraid it means, of course, that sports, such as football and cricket, which are now on the lower scale and have been getting it for some time, will have to cost a bit more. The reductions in duty will operate from 30th March, but the increase will not start until 31st August.
Finally, I must close a loophole in the Finance Act, 1946, and make it quite clear that music hall and other variety enter-
1294
tainments do not get the exemption intended for educational activities. I hope that it will not be said that by taxing music for the millions I am cutting education. This amendment will come into force tomorrow. The proposals as a whole will cost me about £250,000 in a full year, but this year, because I am giving the relief before I take the increase, they will cost £500,000.

POST OFFICE CHARGES
I now turn to certain minor sources of revenue for this year. My noble Friend the Postmaster-General, in order to balance his accounts and also to assist me, has found it necessary to increase certain Post Office charges. Increasing costs mean that without some advance in charges the Commercial Accounts for next year would show a deficit. There will be increased charges for certain inland and overseas postal services, some increases in postal order poundages, as well as higher charges for certain telephone and telegraphic services. The details of all these, including the dates on which they will come into operation, will be found in the White Paper.
I need only say that no change is proposed in the 2½d. letter or the 6d. air letter. Further than the changes shown in the White Paper, it is the intention of the Postmaster-General, following the recent increase in railway freight rates, to raise inland parcel post rates. In all, these changes in the tariffs for Post Office services, apart from the parcel post rates, will bring in a cash revenue of £9,635,000 in the forthcoming year and in a full year they should produce about £13,800,000.

OIL
I now come to some major proposals. While budgeting for a large surplus I yet wish to finance certain important changes which the Government conceive to be in the interest of those large sections of the people, who, by their increased efforts, can increase national production or who have reached the end of their life's work or have been or are incapacitated or hindered by disability, sickness, injury or unemployment.
I have only one tax increase to propose and that is on oil. Since the main objective of the Budget is to relieve our balance of payments difficulties I must pay particular attention to a scarce product which costs us foreign exchange.

1295
As I said in January, I have considered and rejected petrol rationing. I propose instead to raise by 7½d. a gallon the Customs duty on petrol and other light oils and on heavy oil used as road fuel. The duty at present stands at Is. 10½d. a gallon. The increase will apply to any oils of this kind which become chargeable with duty from 6 p.m. today. The retail price of petrol, at present selling at 3s. 7½d. a gallon, will thus be raised to 4s. 3d. a gallon. The new maximum prices, including the extra duty, will become effective at the garages after midnight tonight. I have a good deal more to say so I hope that hon. Members will not hurry out.
Indigenous light oils and heavy oils used in road vehicles are already given a preference of 9d. a gallon. It is proposed to continue this preference. The duty on indigenous oils of this category will, therefore, be raised by 7½d. a gallon at the same time. There will be corresponding adjustments in the rates on petrol substitutes and power methylated spirits. The extra revenue from this change is estimated at £66 million in a full year and the same amount in 1952 to 1953.

MOTOR VEHICLE DUTIES
I propose, at the same time, to meet a claim of motorists which has been urged by hon. Members upon each of my predecessors since 1947; that is, I intend to abolish the anomalous assessment of licence duty on the older private cars on the basis of their horsepower rating. The only reason for this survival was the loss of revenue which it avoided. This was estimated at between £5 million and £6 million pounds, and the latest revised estimate is £7 million. I do not think anyone will suppose that I can or should afford such a loss. I therefore propose that there shall be a flat rate for all cars, and that this be increased from £10 to £12 10s. a year.
I do not think this increase on the rate originally fixed in the very different conditions of 1947 is excessive. I recognise that owners of the small number of cars of 7 horsepower or less registered before 1947 will face a somewhat larger increase; but they have been fortunate in enjoying for so long the benefit of their
1296
anomalous position. I have reflected, also, that they use less petrol. These charges, as is customary, will come into force on 1st January, 1953; they could not be brought into force earlier without gross inequities as between those who have already taken out licences for the whole of 1952 and others. I estimate that they will cost £850,000 in 1952 to 1953 and £1,300,000 in a full year.

FOOD SUBSIDIES
I now proceed with my other proposals. In our statement of policy published last October we undertook to review the subsidies and other methods of paying out the public's money so that those in the greatest need get the most benefit. This review has been carried out. In that same statement of policy we pointed out how our economy was being distorted by large food subsidies to all and sundry, irrespective of their need. We said that we should like to simplify the immensely complicated system operating at present and substitute for it methods which supplement the personal incomes of those most hit by living costs, whether by family allowances or differential rates of taxation.
I should on some grounds have liked to have postponed any action about the food subsidies until we had had more time to grapple with the severe economic problems of the time. But the very intensity of our situation makes it essential to lighten the burden on the economy to bring back the sense of reality to which I have referred.
Hon. Members are probably familiar with the history of these subsidies. During the war, they were of modest amount and served a clearly defined and measurable objectively, namely, to hold the cost of living index practically steady. After the war, the amount necessary to meet this objective rose rapidly. Moreover, the objective itself became unattainable when the scope of the index was revised and a substantial number of items of expenditure were included. There were variations which could not be controlled by subsidy. My predecessors, therefore, were faced with the necessity of introducing the principle of restricting the food subsidies each year to specified ceilings. In his 1949 Budget, Sir Stafford Cripps spoke of a prospective rise of

1297
subsidies from £485 million to £568 million, and said:
"That just cannot go on. We must call a halt … Prices have got out of all relationship with realities.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 2085.]
And that is exactly what I say today. I do not think we can justify any longer our present level of expenditure on subsidising food. We subsidise everyone, whether in need of help or not. In our statement of policy we said that we subsidised Cabinet Ministers. I was not sure when this was written that I would appear in this capacity or in the position in which I now find myself. We subsidise the staple foods not only when they are consumed in the ordinary forms, but when they are ingredients in expensive luxuries.
We must try to direct our assistance to the places where it is really needed. Besides, this heavy expenditure contributes to the need for a high level of taxation, so high as to leave no room for manoeuvre when we want to make any change. Harder working and higher earning by those who could contribute to the extra production are discouraged in present circumstances.
The subsidies mean—I repeat again the words of Sir Stafford Cripps—"prices out of all relationship with realities." The subsidies conceal from the consumer the real cost of what we have to pay in exports for the foods we import. As a result people tend to spend a large part of their incomes on the non-essentials of life.
Part of the object of this Budget is to restore a sense of reality to our personal as well as our national accounts. I am not proposing any increase in taxes on tobacco or liquor, partly for the reason that these are now at such a height that the law of diminishing returns may show signs of beginning to operate. So I must leave it to the individual so to arrange his or her own personal budget to meet the extra costs involved by this national Budget. If they insist on smoking I shall get the revenue; if not, they will have more to spend on food.
Before I put my actual proposals to the Committee, I must remind hon. Members that the subsidy figure in the estimates I have already described is £410 million. As was the experience of my predecessors, some price increases would be necessary to bring the subsidies down
1298
to this figure. There have been and are in prospect some rises in the cost of imported foods not yet covered, and also we must take account of the current annual review of the prices of home produced foods. Naturally, while the negotiations on the latter are in progress, I cannot give a precise figure, but something of the order of £50 million may be required for the whole of these uncovered matters.
Now for my actual proposals. It is now proposed to make such increases of prices as may prove necessary to bring the food subsidy figure down to a rate of £250 million a year. This will be the new ceiling when the increases of prices are in full operation. I must warn the Committee that a wide range of increases will be necessary, and in the course of making them we shall try to eliminate altogether the subsidy on some foods, thus securing a measure of simplification. The price of the 1¾ lb. loaf will be increased by 1½d. from 16th March and there will be an increase from the same date of 1¼d. per lb. of flour.
As a result of reducing the subsidy the price of meat will be increased by an average of 4d. a lb. at an early date. The reduction of 1d. a quart in the price of milk which was due to be made seasonally at the end of March will not now be made and there will be a seasonal increase of 1d. a quart later in the year. The price of tea will be put up to a level which will eliminate subsidy altogether but this will not come into force until the summer.
Hon. Members: How much?
Mr. Butler: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to go on with my statement?
Increases of prices of other subsidised foods will be made over the next few months. They will be announced in due course by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food and will extend to fats, cheese, butter, sugar, bacon and eggs. No change will be made in the arrangement for subsidised school milk, and cheap or free milk for nursing mothers and young children.
It is impossible to calculate exactly what the total effect of all these changes will be. This is the main sacrifice for which this Budget calls, and I should, therefore, like to be as clear as possible

1299
and to put my figures high rather than low. This extra cost may well average out at about 1s. 6d. per week per head of population.
I now turn to the other side of the operation, by which it is the Government's wish and my particular desire to help those whose needs are greatest.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE
The ultimate protection against want in this country is National Assistance. I have no doubt that the National Assistance Board will take cognisance of my proposals on food subsidies and will make appropriate recommendations to the Government in due course. I cannot anticipate what they will propose. But I do not intend that compensatory actions for the steps I have just announced should be limited to this ultimate recourse against want.
I therefore come to the first congenial task which has fallen to my lot since I became Chancellor—that is to allot to my colleagues principally concerned sufficient funds to carry out some much-needed reforms.

NATIONAL INSURANCE
First, I turn to the sphere of the Minister of National Insurance. I have already referred to welfare milk and school milk. Besides this protection to parents in the interests of their children, it is proposed to increase the family allowance from 5s. a week to 8s. a week on the same basis as the present Act, namely, to children in the family after the first. The cost will be some £37 million in a full year. Thus a family with two children only will receive an extra 3s. and this will cover extra costs of food for the children. As families are larger so will the benefit very rapidly spread in the interests of the family as a whole. Thus we fulfil the undertaking given in our policy statement that in redistributing public money to those in need we would use the method of family allowances.
I come now to the National Insurance scheme, which circumstances of today would call us in any case to revise. We are already pledged to consider the needs of old age pensioners. There are differences of rates between pensioners over 70 and under. There are differences of opinion about the value of this
1300
particular method adopted by my predecessor to give incentives to those over 65 to stay at work. Indeed, ideas—and they are not confined to one side of the Committee or the other—vary about the relative value of the different forms of encouragement which might be given to encourage longer working.
In view of these very real difficulties, to which a great deal of time and thought has been given, and of the important social issues involved, my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance has made a request that he should be given time to enter into discussions at once with both sides of industry with a view to working out proposals which he will present to the House. I feel sure he will benefit by the advice of the Trades Union Congress. There are many problems, and the committees should not rush into decisions without proper advice.
I have asked the Minister to take as a measure of what we can afford uniform benefits of 32s. 6d. for a single person and 54s. for a married couple and the appropriate increase of contributions—the increases for employers and employees would be 7½d. each for men per week and 5½d. for women. The contribution income from employers and workers would be about equal to the increase at the outset in the amount of benefits, though, of course, as the Committee are probably aware the cost of pension benefits rises steadily as time goes on, and the contribution income remains about constant.
If I take account of the saving of National Assistance on the one hand and of the loss of Income Tax on the contributions on the other, the change involves a burden on the budget and the Insurance Fund taken together of about £10 million a year in the early years. This, in round terms, is the material which I have asked my right hon. Friend to use in building up his scheme.

WAR PENSIONS
I now wish to respond to appeals made to me by the Minister of Pensions. I accept his view that war pensions should be increased on the basis of a rise of 10s. a week in disability pension for 100 per cent. disablement, with pro rata increases to cover degrees of disablement less than 100 per cent. The standard basic rate will thus be increased from 45s. to 55s.

1301
a week. There will also be some increases for war widows, and my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions will make an announcement in due course. The cost of these improvements will be approximately £10 million a year.

INDUSTRIAL INJURY BENEFITS
As regards industrial injury benefits, the Government propose to increase the basic rate by 10s., i.e., from 45s. to 55s. Here again we propose to give appropriate increases for widows. The cost of these improvements will be approximately £3 million a year. My right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance is working out the details and considering whether any extra contribution will be needed. He will make a statement in due course.
OTHER PENSIONS
There is another class of pensioner I have had to think about—that is the public service pensioner—the retired school teacher, civil servant, local government officer, policeman, fireman and others, and also the long-service pensioner of Her Majesty's Forces. Some of these people were given some help under the Pensions (Increase) Acts of 1944 and 1947. But I am satisfied that the circumstances are such that some additional help is now called for. I am calling a conference of the authorities concerned to see what should be done. The measure of additional assistance should not, I consider, exceed 5s. to 7s. 6d. a week—say, up to a total of £20 a year.

INTERIM SUMMARY
The Committee will have noticed that the cost of some of the concessions I have mentioned depends on recommendations to be made to the Government and negotiations to be undertaken, and I cannot, therefore, give an absolutely firm figure for the total cost at this stage. I estimate, however, that the net total cost to the Budget and the Insurance Fund in a full year would be about £80 million. The cost, of course, would rise in future years with the rising cost of old age pensions.
Neither the saving on the food subsidies of £160 million nor the cost of the concessions of £80 million a year will be fully felt in 1952–53. I have already outlined the programme of reductions of the food subsidies. Having regard to the time for the necessary legislation and
1302
other Parliamentary action which is required for most of the other side of the proposals—though we shall proceed both on this and on the preparatory administration with all speed—I put the combined effect of both sets of proposals in 1952–53 at the same figure as for the full year, namely, as giving me on balance a sum available of £80 million.

INCOME TAX
I now come to the last feature of the operation which I have undertaken. A true and lasting solution for our present troubles can be found only through increased production, harder work and in-increased output. It is by increased production and a new spirit of satisfaction in rewards well earned that we shall pull through. I am convinced that the present weight of direct taxation, particularly on the lower and middle income groups, acts as a very positive discouragement to extra effort.
We spoke of the need for differential rates of taxation in our policy statement. We must sweep irritations aside and make people feel that if they work harder they will be allowed to enjoy a proper reward for so doing. Austerity and restriction alone are not enough we must give positive encouragement if we are all to pull through together.
I propose, therefore, to make radical changes in the incidence of the Income Tax designed to lighten the burden of the tax, particularly on extra earnings, and thus to encourage people when they put in longer hours overtime or earn more by harder work. We must ensure that the tax works with, and not against, economic forces, and that it encourages rather than damps down people's natural aspirations.
The Income Tax in its present form suffers from three major defects: the starting points of liability are too low, the rates of tax are too high and the graduation is too steep. I propose to make a start this year in tackling these defects. I propose that the single allowance shall be increased from £110 to £120, the married allowance from £190 to £210 and the child allowance from £70 to £85. The earned income relief will be increased from the present one-fifth to two-ninths. I should have liked to have increased it to one-quarter, but I am afraid that this year I cannot afford to go as far as that.
The maximum of the allowance will go up from £400 to £450 at an income level of about £2,000. The professional classes need an incentive as much as any other. The present reduced rates, which take the form of charging the first £50 of taxable income at 3s. and the next £200 at 5s. 6d., will be replaced by an improved structure under which the first £100 will be charged at 3s., the next £150 at 5s. 6d. and the next £150 at 7s. 6d.
The effect of these proposals taken together will be to increase the starting point of liability on earned income for the single person from £2 17s. a week to £3 3s. a week; for the married person without children from £4 15s. a week to £5 8s. a week; for the married person with one child from £6 9s. a week to £7 10s. a week; and for the married person with two children from £8 3s. a week to £9 12s. a week. In this way, no fewer than two million people will be exempted from tax altogether.
The change in the reduced rates structure will mean that the standard rate will not now become payable until earnings reach £13 1s. a week for the single man; £15 6s. for the married man without children; £17 8s. for the married man with one child; and £19 10s. a week for the married man with two children. I have now so set these income levels that they will mean that in the great majority of cases overtime may freely be worked without risk of liability to tax at the standard rate.
If I may put the situation in a graphical form, I would refer to perhaps the most important person for the balance of payments in the country. A miner at the coal face, doing the hardest and most valuable work in the country, may curse the cuts of which he has been told a great deal, and yet, by more production, make extra earnings under this Budget which will recompense him several times over for any cuts made. I have carefully considered various suggestions which have been made from time to time for exempting overtime altogether from Income Tax, but so far no fair or practical way of doing this has been found. The proposal I have put forward, is, I think, the best way of ensuring that overtime is not unduly penalised for taxation purposes. I hope that this alone will provide a very
1304
real and positive incentive to greater production.
The increase in the earned income relief will mean a reduction in the effective rates of tax charged on earned income, including overtime. Tables published in the White Paper will give figures to indicate the extent of the reduction in tax which will be given to single and married men under these proposals. The Committee will remember that the family man with children is already free of Income Tax worries in the lower ranges. He will get the benefit of the family allowances. Also, he will get some increasing degree of relief under these schemes once he and his family come within the present scale
As the tables in the White Paper show. I can count next year on a considerable increase in the revenue from the Excess Profits Levy and in other ways. I consider that we can well afford the £180 million which these reliefs will cost in the current year. The figure for a full year will be £228 million. For P.A.Y.E. deductions on the new scale will commence on the first pay day after 8th June.
There is one further relief I propose in the Income Tax field, designed primarily to help retired people and people living on small fixed incomes. Pensions already qualify for the earned income relief and will benefit from the increase in the rate to two-ninths. I propose to go further and do something special for small investment incomes which do not at present benefit from the earned income relief, and which do not qualify for the age relief because the taxpayer has not yet reached the age of 65. Many hon. Members who have relatives or friends living under these modest circumstances, whether they be retired, single or married, an aunt or cousin, a friend or neighbour, will surely welcome this simple act of grace.
I propose that, in future, all incomes below £250 a year shall receive the earned income relief, which will, of course, be at the new rate of two-ninths. There will be a marginal relief where the income slightly exceeds £250. The cost of this proposal, which represents a well-deserved measure of relief to people on whom the rise in the cost of living is bearing and will bear very hardly, will be £¼ million this year and £1 million in a full year.

GENERAL CONCLUSION
The final effect of all the changes I propose can be expressed thus: I hope to obtain in 1952–53 another £10 million from the Post Office, and £66 million extra from petrol. I hope also to save a net amount of about £80 million as the combined result of reducing the food subsidies but improving social benefits. This total of about £156 million is rather more than offset by the Income Tax reliefs, costing about £180 million; and, allowing also for the minor proposals which I have mentioned, the final surplus above the line, to which I drew the Committee's attention earlier, becomes about £510 million, slightly less than at the outset, but still, for the reasons which I have given, approximately the amount which the situation requires, and incidentally covering—as Sir Stafford Cripps taught us to do—the liabilities below the line in the conventional accounts. This, I think, is a thoroughly healthy and satisfactory conclusion.
This, then, is my Budget, necessary, I judge, to achieve our objectives in the year ahead, and also sufficient. But what is more, all its changes—the new revenue, and the savings from further economies—are being devoted to relieving hardship, reducing inequity and providing fresh incentives. Solvency, security, duty and incentive are our themes. Restriction and austerity are not enough. We want a system which offers us both more realism and more hope. These are the underlying purposes of the measures I have proposed, the deeper explanation of their character. We must now set forth, braced and resolute, to show the world that we shall regain our solvency and, with it, our national greatness.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
1. Hydrocarbon oils, etc. (Customs and Excise)
Resolved,
That as from six o'clock in the evening of the eleventh day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, there shall be an increase of sevenpence halfpenny a gallon—

(a) in the rate of the duty of customs on hydrocarbon oils; and

(b) in each of the rates of the rebate allowed on the delivery for home consumption of hydrocarbon oils other than light oils;

and the rates of the excise duty and rebate on hydrocarbon oils and of the excise duties on
1306
petrol substitutes and on spirits used for making power methylated spirits (which under sections two and three of the Finance Act, 1950, and section one of the Finance Act, 1951, depend on the rate of the customs duty on hydrocarbon oils) shall be increased accordingly.
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.
2. Entertainments (Excise)
Resolved,
That—

(a) payments to which this paragraph applies for admission to racing, games and other sports or to entertainments which include items being racing, games or other sports and are such that apart from those items entertainments duty in respect of the entertainments would be chargeable at the reduced rates or would not be chargeable shall, instead of being chargeable to duty in some cases at the reduced rates and in other cases at the full rates, in all cases be chargeable at the following intermediate rates, that is to say—

Amount of payment

Rate of duty

Where the amount of the payment, excluding the amount of duty,—

exceeds 1s. and does not exceed 1s. 1½d.

1½d.

exceeds 1s. 1½d.

1½d. for the first 1s. 1½d. and ½d. for every 1d. or part of 1d. over 1s. 1½d.;

and this paragraph applies, in so far as it increases the rates of duty, to payments made on or after the twelfth day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, for admission to entertainments held on or after the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and in so far as it reduces the rates of duty to payments (whenever made) for admission to entertainments held on or after the thirtieth day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and any necessary repayment of duty shall be made;
(b) payments made on or after the twelfth day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, for admission to an entertainment held on or after that date shall not be exempted by section eight of the Finance Act, 1946, if the entertainment is a music-hall or other variety entertainment.
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.
3. Pool betting (Excise)
Resolved,
That the law relating to the pool betting duty shall be amended—

(a) as regards bets made by reference to any event taking place on or after the twenty-second day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, by treating any bet as made by way of pool betting unless each of the persons making it knows or can know, at the time he makes it, the amount he will win, except in so far as that amount is to depend on the result of the event or events betted on, or on any such event taking place or producing a result, or on the numbers taking part in any such event, or on the starting prices or totalisator odds for any such event, or on there being totalisator odds for any such event, or on the time when his bet is received by any person with or through whom it is made ("starting prices" meaning for this purpose the odds ruling at the scene of the event immediately before the start, and "totalisator odds" the odds paid on bets made by means of a totalisator at the scene of the event); and

(b) as regards bets made by reference to events taking place after the commencement of any Act giving effect to this resolution, by making provision for cases where the winnings of a person making a bet consist or may consist in whole or in part of something other than money and by making provision for treating as stake money on a bet any payment entitling a person to make a bet (or to enter into a transaction which would be a bet if there were stake money besides that payment);

but nothing in this resolution shall be taken to restrict the operation of any existing enactment defining pool betting.
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.
4. Vehicles (Excise)
Resolved,
That, from the beginning of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-three, the rate of the annual duty under the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, in respect of a mechanically propelled vehicle chargeable under section six (other than an electrically propelled vehicle) shall be twelve pounds ten shillings, irrespective of the date of the vehicle's first registration.

PURCHASE TAX
5. Purchase Tax (utility goods, etc.)
Resolved,
That—

(a) purchase tax shall be chargeable in respect of goods of any description which are utility articles in the same cases and at the same rates as it is chargeable in respect of
1308
goods of that description which are not utility articles under the enactments and orders now in force, but subject to any provision made in pursuance of the following paragraphs of this resolution or in pursuance of any other resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means, and subject to any Treasury order made under section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1948, after the passing of the Act giving effect to this resolution;

(b) subject to any such Treasury order, garments trimmed with fursk in (including skin with fur, hair or wool attached), but not otherwise made thereof, shall not be chargeable with purchase tax at the third rate under paragraph (f) of Group 1 in Part 1 of the Eighth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1948, but (except in so far as they are comprised in some other paragraph of that Group) shall, if of a kind suitable for young children's wear, be exempt from purchase tax and, if not of such a kind be comprised in paragraph (a) of that Group (which charges tax at the first rate in respect of garments and footwear not comprised in any other paragraph):

(c) there shall no longer be power to define the classes of goods affected by any such Treasury order by reference to marks the use of which the Board of Trade have power to regulate;

(d) except as respects utility furniture and component parts of utility furniture, effect shall be given to this resolution as from the seventeenth day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-two.

6. Purchase Tax (deductions from wholesale value)
Resolved,
That—

(a) where an article falling within any class of goods to which this resolution applies is an article of a description specified in the prescribed list for that class, then if the wholesale value of the article does not exceed the amount specified in the list in relation to that description, any purchase tax which would otherwise be chargeable in respect of the article shall not be chargeable, and if the wholesale value of the article does exceed the amount so specified, any purchase tax chargeable in respect of the article shall be chargeable on the excess only instead of on the wholesale value of the article (but so that an article shall be treated as excluded from any description specified in the list for a class within which the article falls, if the article is comprised in some other description so specified and the amount specified in relation to that other description is the lower);

(b) this resolution shall apply to the three following classes of goods—

Class I. wearing apparel, including handkerchiefs:

Class II, cloth, plastic sheeting which is of a kind suitable for making garments or curtains, tablecloths and similar soft furnishings, domestic textile articles, soft furnishings and bedding, but excluding floor coverings and material for floor coverings:

1309

Class III, furniture of a kind used for domestic purposes, but excluding clocks, musical instruments, heating or lighting appliances and apparatus and appliances and apparatus operated by gas or electricity;

and the prescribed list for any of those classes shall be such list as may be prescribed by or under any Act giving effect to this resolution;

(c) provision shall be made—

(i) for treating as chargeable goods articles in respect of which tax is not chargeable by reason of the new provisions made in pursuance of this resolution;

(ii) for applying section twenty-four of the Finance Act, 1948 (which relates to the effect of changes in the charge to tax in relation to pre-existing contracts), to changes made by or under the new provisions in the goods in respect of which tax is chargeable or in the amount of tax chargeable in respect of any goods;

(iii) for enabling regulations under Part V of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, to direct that for the purpose of the new provisions an article shall be treated as an article of a particular material or class of material unless marked to show that it is an article of some other material or class of material;

(d) effect shall be given to this resolution as from the seventeenth day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, except in relation

CLASS I

Description of article

Amount not chargeable

£

s.

d.

A.—Articles of men's or boys' wear of any of the following descriptions:

1. Overcoats, cloaks and raincoats, being garments exceeding 42" in length:

(a) of Class A material, fully-lined or lined at least down to the waist (including the sleeves, if any), or of sheepskin

6

10

0

per article

(b) of Class A material, not so lined

2

5

0

per article

2. Overcoats, cloaks, raincoats, mackintosh coats, oilskin coats, fishermen's oilskin frocks and overall coats, being garments exceeding 42" in length and of Class B material:

(a) fully-lined

4

15

0

per article

(b) of double-texture cloth and not fully-lined

3

10

0

per article

(c) not of double-texture cloth nor fully-lined

2

5

0

per article

3. Coats, cloaks and overall coats, being garments not exceeding 42" in length, jackets (not including blouse-type jackets or pyjama jackets), blazers, overall jackets, waterproof capes and fishermen's oilskin skirts:

(a) of Class A material, full-lined, or of skeepskin

4

0

0

per article

(b) of Class A material, not fully-lined

2

5

0

per article

(c) of Class B material, fully-lined or of double-texture cloth

2

0

0

per article

(d) of Class B material, but not of double-texture cloth nor fully-lined

1

5

0

per article

4. Blouse-type jackets, waistcoats, cardigans, jerseys, sweaters, pullovers, slip-overs and bed-jackets

1

1

0

per article

5. Trousers (not including pyjama trousers), overall trousers, oilskin trousers. plus-fours, breeches, jodhpurs, kilts and bib-and-brace overalls:

(a) of Class A material

2

5

0

per article

(b) of Class B material

1

15

0

per article

6. Shorts and knickers:

(a) of Class A material

1

12

0

per article

(b) of Class B material

10

0

per article

7. Thigh-length leggings:

(a) of double-texture cloth

1

3

0

per pair

(11

6

per article)

(b) not of double-texture cloth

15

0

per pair

(7

6

per article)

to furniture, and (subject to paragraph (b) of this resolution) for the two other classes of goods the lists contained in the subjoined Table shall be the prescribed lists having effect from that date.

TABLE
NOTE—In this Table—

the expression "Class A material" means textile material containing more than 15 per cent. by weight of fibre (whether or not subjected to any process of manufacture or recovery) from the coat or fleece of alpaca, camel, goat, hare, lamb, llama, rabbit, sheep, vicuna or yak, or of horsehair;

the expression "Class B material" means material other than Class A material and other than fur skin;

the expression "Class C material" means cloth of which the textile content comprises not less than 80 per cent. by weight of flax;

the expression "fur skin" includes any skin with fur, hair or wool attached;

any reference to things "of" any material refers, unless the context otherwise requires, to things made wholly or mainly of that material, any lining or interlining being disregarded, except that anything fully-lined with fur skin is to be treated as being of fur skin.

Description of article (men's or boys' wear)

Amount not chargeable

£

s.

d.

8. Shirts (with or without collar attached)

17

6

per article

9. Shirt collars and shirt neckbands

1

9

per article

10. Dressing-gowns and bath-robes:

(a) of Class A material

3

15

0

per article

(b) of Class B material

2

0

0

per article

11. Aprons (with or without bib):

(a) of leather, rubber or asbestos

1

10

0

per article

(b) of material other than leather, rubber and asbestos

12

0

per article

12. Overall boiler suits, overall gowns and overall smocks, being garments exceeding 42" in length

2

5

0

per article

13. Pyjama jackets and pyjama trousers

10

0

per article

14. Nightshirts

1

0

0

per article

15. Undervests, singlets, pants, trunks and drawers:

(a) of Class A material

14

0

per article

(b) of Class B material

4

0

per article

16. Combinations:

(a) of Class A material

1

5

0

per article

(b) of Class B material

7

0

per article

17. Bathing costumes, bathing trunks and swimming drawers:

(a) of Class A material

10

0

per article

(b) of Class B material

2

0

per article

18. Stockings and socks:

(a) of Class A material

5

6

per pair

(2

9

per article)

(b) of Class B material

2

6

per pair

(1

3

per article)

19. Boots and bootees:

(a) articles which are either unlined or lined only with cotton fabric or leather, and are not made wholly or partly of fur or imitation fur

3

0

0

per pair

(1

10

0

per article)

(b) articles of any other description

2

0

0

per pair

(1

0

0

per article)

20. Shoes (including sandals, but not including slippers):

(a) with uppers of leather

2

0

0

per pair

(1

0

0

per article)

(b) of rubber or with moulded rubber soles and uppers of fabric

15

0

per pair

(7

6

per article)

(c) of any other description

1

5

0

per pair

(12

6

per article)

21. Slippers

15

0

per pair

(7

6

per article)

22. Articles of headgear, of woven cloth, being either articles suitable only for infants' wear or caps, berets, sou'westers or industrial hats, and articles of headgear or knitted cloth or wholly or mainly knitted

8

0

per article

23. Gloves:

(a) articles which apart from any stitchings, fastenings or trimmings are wholly knitted or made wholly of woven or knitted cloth

3

0

per pair

(1

6

per article)

(b) articles of any other description

12

0

per pair

(6

0

per article)

24. Scarves, knitted or woven:

(a) of Class A material

10

0

per article

(b) of Class B material

3

0

per article

25. Braces

4

0

per article

Description of article (women's or girls' wear)

Amount not chargeable

£

s.

d.

3. Jackets (not including blouse-type jackets or pyjama jackets), blazers, coats, cloaks, capes (not including cycling capes) and overalls with sleeves, being garments exceeding 20" in length but not exceeding 42" in length; cycling capes exceeding 20" in length, waistcoats with sleeves, blouses, shirt-blouses, shirts (with or without collar attached), cardigans of woven or knitted cloth and jumpers of woven or knitted cloth:

(a) of Class A material, fully-lined, or of fur skin

4

0

0

per article

(b) of Class A material, not fully-lined

2

0

0

per article

(c) of Class B material, fully-lined or of double-texture cloth

1

15

0

per article

(d) of Class B material, but not of double-texture cloth nor fully-lined

16

0

per article

4. Boleros, jackets and capes, being garments not exceeding 20" in length, and fur stoles containing not less than 2 sq. ft. of fur skin measured on the leather

1

0

0

per article

5. Blouse-type jackets, sleeveless waistcoats, knitted jumpers, knitted cardigans, jerseys, sweaters and bed-jackets

1

0

0

per article

6. Skirts, kilts, divided skirts, shorts, slacks, breeches, jodhpurs and bib-and-brace-overalls:

(a) of Class A material

2

0

0

per article

(b) of Class B material

1

5

0

per article

7. Dresses, pianafore-dresses, gym tunics, housecoats, dressing-gowns and bath-robes:

(a) of Class A material

3

15

0

per article

(b) of Class B material

2

0

0

per article

8. Overalls exceeding 42" in length, boiler suits and overall gowns

2

0

0

per article

9. Aprons (with ot without bib) and pinarettes

5

0

per article

10. Shirt collars and shirt neckbands

1

9

per article

11. Pyjama jackets and pyjama trousers

10

0

per article

12. Nightdresses

15

0

per article

13. Slips, petticoats and cami-knickers

8

6

per article

14. Undervests, spencers, camisoles and bodices:

(a) of Class A material

9

0

per article

(b) of Class B material

3

0

per article

15. Knickers, pantees and briefs:

(a) of Class A material

6

0

per article

(b) of Class B material

4

0

per article

16. Combinations:

(a) of Class A material

1

0

0

per article

(b) of Class B material

7

0

per article

17. Corsets (not including roll-on elastic belts) and corselettes

1

0

0

per article

18. Brassieres, suspender belts and roll-on elastic belts

5

6

per article

19. Bathing costumes (including two-piece and three-piece bathing costumes)

11

6

per costume

20. Stockings and three-quarter hose:

(a) of Class A material

5

6

per pair

(2

9

per article)

(b) of Class B material

3

6

per pair

(1

9

per article)

21. Ankle socks:

(a) of Class A material

2

0

per pair

(1

0

per article)

(b) of Class B material

1

3

per pair

(7½

per article)

22. Boots and bootees:

(a) articles which are either unlined or lined only with cotton fabric or leather, and are not made wholly or partly of fur or imitation fur

3

0

0

per pair

(1

10

0

per article)

(b) articles of any other description

1

17

0

per pair

(18

6

per article)

23. Shoes (including sandals and slippers):

(a) with uppers of leather

1

17

0

per pair

(18

6

per article)

(b) of rubber or with moulded rubber soles and uppers of fabric

15

0

per pair

(7

6

per article)

(c) of any other description

1

8

0

per pair

(14

0

per article)

24. Articles of headgear, of woven cloth, being either articles suitable only for infants' wear or articles forming part of a matching set with a coat not exceeding 42" in length or caps, berets, hoods, sou'westers or industrial hats, and articles of headgear of knitted cloth or wholly or mainly knitted

8

0

per article

Description of article (women's or girls' wear)

Amount not chargeable

25. Gloves:

£

s.

d.

(a) articles which apart from any stitchings, fastenings or trimmings are wholly knitted or made wholly of woven or knitted cloth

3

0

per pair

(1

6

per article)

(b) articles of any other description

12

0

per pair

(6

0

per article)

26. Scarves and shawls, being knitted or woven articles:

(a) of Class A material

10

0

per article

(b) of Class B material

3

0

per article

Description of article

C.—Handkerchiefs of the following descriptions:

1. Handkerchiefs of Class C material:

(a) exceeding 256 square inches in area

1

6

per article

(b) not exceeding 256 square inches in area

9

per article

2. Handkerchiefs of material other than Class C material:

(a) exceeding 256 square inches in area

1

0

per article

(b) not exceeding 256 square inches in area

6

per article

CLASS II

1. Cloth exceeding 3" in width, in the piece or in cut lengths, including cloth which has been dyed, printed, coated or otherwise treated:

(a) Class A material

14

6

per sq. yd.

(b) Class B material

4

0

per sq. yd.

2. Plastic sheeting, in the piece or in cut lengths

4

0

per sq. yd.

3. Blankets, travelling rugs, pram rugs, bedspreads, counterpanes (not including filled quilts), curtains and curtain panels:

(a) of Class A material

14

6

per sq. yd.

(b) of Class B material

4

0

per sq. yd.

4. Bed sheets, table cloths and table covers:

(a) of Class A material

14

6

per sq. yd.

(b) of Class C material

6

0

per sq. yd.

(c) of Class B material, other than Class C material.

4

0

per sq. yd.

5. Pillows

10

0

per article

6. Bolsters:

(a) not less than 45" in length

1

0

0

per article

(b) less than 45" in length

15

0

per article

7. Overlay mattresses, soft filled:

(a) not less than 45" in width

7

10

0

per article

(b) less than 45" in width

5

0

0

per article

8. Upholstered overlay mattresses with spring or cellular rubber interior (not including boxspring mattresses or spring-bases):

(a) not less than 45" in width

10

10

0

per article

(b) less than 45" in width

7

10

0

per article

9. Filled quilts:

(a) not less than 53" in width

2

10

0

per article

(b) less than 53" in width

2

0

0

per article

10. Pillow cases:

(a) of Class C material

6

0

per article

(b) of other material

4

0

per article

11. Bolster cases of Class C material:

(a) not less than 53" in length

16

6

per article

(b) less than 53" in length

10

6

per article

12. Bolster cases of material other than Class C material:

(a) not less than 53" in length

11

0

per article

(b) less than 53" in length

7

0

per article

13. Pillow ticks

3

6

per article

14. Mattress ticks:

(a) not less than 45" in width

1

10

0

per article

(b) less than 45" in width

1

0

0

per article

15. Table napkins, tray cloths and table mats, being articles not exceeding ½ square yard in area:

(a) of Class C material

3

0

per article

(b) of other material

2

0

per article

16. Towels and tea towels, being articles of Class C material, and terry towels of other material:

(a) exceeding 1 square yard in area

7

6

per article

(b) exceeding ½ square yard but not exceeding 1 square yard in area

5

3

per article

(c) not exceeding ½ square yard in area

3

0

per article

17. Towels (not including terry towels) and tea towels, being articles of material other than Class C material:

(a) exceeding 1 square yard in area

5

0

per article

(b) exceeding ½ square yard but not exceeding 1 square yard in area

3

6

per article

(c) not exceeding ½ square yard in area

2

0

per article

INCOME TAX
7. Charge of Income Tax for 1952–53
Resolved,
That income tax for the year 1952–53 shall be charged at the standard rate of nine shillings and sixpence in the pound and in the case of an individual whose total income exceeds two thousand pounds, at such higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as Parliament may hereafter determine.
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. 1913.
8. income Tax (personal reliefs, etc.)
Resolved,
That the Income Tax Act, 1952, shall be amended as follows:—

(a) in section two hundred and twenty (reduced rate relief)—

(i) references to £50 and £200 (the amounts to which the three shilling and five and sixpenny rates ordinarily apply) shall be replaced by references to £100 and £150, and accordingly the references to £100 and £400 (the special amounts for cases where the wife has earned income) shall be replaced by references to £200 and £300;

(ii) there shall be added a new provision that where the amount of tax remaining chargeable as mentioned in subsection (1) exceeds tax at the standard rate on £250, there shall be a further deduction equal to four-nineteenths of the excess or to four-nineteenths of the tax at the standard rate on £150, whichever is the less (giving a reduced rate on that amount of 7s. 6d.), together with an extension for cases to which subsection (2) (wife's earned income) applies corresponding to subsection (4) with the substitution for the present references to £50, £200, £250 and £400 of references to £250, to £150, to £400, and to £300;

and subsection (3) of section three hundred and fifty-four (which apportions the personal reliefs in part to the wife's earned income) shall apply to so much of the new provision as corresponds to the said subsection (4) as it applies to the said subsection (4);

(b) in section two hundred and ten (personal reliefs) the references to £110 and £190 (which fix the amounts of the personal relief and also the limit on the additional relief on wife's earned income) shall be replaced by references to £120 and £210;

(c) in sections two hundred and twelve and two hundred and thirteen (children relief) the references to £70 (which fix the amount of the
1318
relief for each child and the limit on the child's own income) shall be replaced by references to £85;

(d) in section two hundred and eleven (earned income and old age reliefs) the fraction one-fifth (which fixes the rate of those reliefs), and in section two hundred and ten the fraction four-fifths (which fixes the rate of the additional relief on wife's earned income), shall be replaced by the fractions two-ninths and sevennjnths, and in section two hundred and eleven the reference to £400 (which fixes the limit on the earned income relief) shall be replaced by a reference to £450;

(e) there shall be added a new provision, in place of section two hundred and nine (incomes below £160), that a claimant not entitled to relief under subsection (2) of section two hundred and eleven) old age relief)—

(i) it he proves that his total income does not exceed £250, shall be entitled to a deduction from the amount of income tax with which he is chargeable equal to tax at the standard rate on two-ninths of the amount of that income;

(ii) if he proves that his total income does not exceed £350, shall be entitled to have the amount of income tax payable in respect of his total income reduced, where necessary, so as not to exceed a sum equal to the aggregate of the two following amounts, that is to say, the amount of the tax which would have been payable if his total income had amounted to, but had not exceeded, £250, and two-fifths of the amount by which his total income exceeds £250;

but so that the Income Tax Act, 1952, and in particular Part VIII shall apply to relief under the new provision in the same way as to relief under subsection (2) of section two hundred and eleven, except that the references to that subsection in subsection (1) of section two hundred and twenty and subsection (4) of section two hundred and twenty-five shall not apply to the provision in sub-paragraph (ii) of this paragraph;

Provided that the changes effected by this resolution shall not affect the amounts of tax deductible or repayable under section one hundred and fifty-seven of the Income Tax Act, 1952, before the eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, but nothing in this proviso shall prevent the resulting under-deductions, over-deductions, under-repayments and over-repayments of tax from being adjusted subsequently by means of increased or diminished deductions and repayments under the said section one hundred and fifty-seven, or, if need be, by an assessment.
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.
9. Income Tax (sources of income ceasing to yield income)
Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise such additional charges to income tax under Case III, IV or V of Schedule D (including charges for years before 1952–53) as may result from any new provision about the method of charging tax in cases where a person ceases to possess a source of profits or income from which no profits or income arose during the preceding year of assessment, or possesses a source of profits or income for six consecutive years of assessment without any profits or income arising from it, and in related cases.
10. Income Tax (tied premises)
Resolved,
That, where a lessor of any premises in the course of a trade carried on by him is concerned, whether as principal or agent, in the supply of goods sold or used on the premises, and by reason thereof deals with the premises or his interest therein as property employed for the purposes of that trade, then in computing for the purposes of income tax the profits or gains or losses of that trade—

(a) no deduction shall be allowed in respect of the premises by reference to his being entitled to a rent for the premises less than the rent which might have been obtained (or less than the annual value of, or the rent payable by him for, the premises) or in respect of the rent or annual value of the premises, except such deductions (if any) as may be allowed under any Act of the present session relating to finance; and

(b) there shall be taken into account as a trading receipt the rent payable for the premises to him or such part of that rent as may be directed by any such Act;

and for this purpose a person having an interest in the reversion on the term created by a letting may be treated as a lessor and rent payable to or paid by the actual lessor may be treated as payable to or paid by him.
11. Income Tax (allowances and charges in respect of machinery, plant and patent rights)
Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise such increases in the income tax payable by any person as may result from amendments of the law relating to allowances, deductions or charges under Part X of the Income Tax Act, 1952, being amendments applicable to machinery or plant or patent rights.
12. Income Tax (underwriters' reserves)
Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise such increases in the income tax payable by any person as may result from raising the limit on the amounts which Lloyd's and other underwriters may pay into special reserve funds.
13. Income Tax (reserves of marketing boards)
Resolved,
That it is expedient to make provision as to the consequences for income tax purposes in the year 1950–51 and later years of transfers into and out of, and distributions of sums withdrawn from, special reserve funds established by marketing boards in connection with arrangements for maintaining guaranteed prices to producers of any commodity.
14. Income Tax (radio relay services)
Resolved,
That, in the case of radio relay services and in such other cases, if any, as may be specified in any Act giving effect to this resolution, provision (retrospective so as to cover tax for the year 1950–51 and all subsequent years of assessment) shall be made that, for income tax purposes, rents and other payments for easements and other rights connected with electric, telegraphic or telephonic wires or cables shall be deductible in computing profits and losses and shall be deemed not to be payable out of profits or gains brought into charge to tax, without, however, the sum on which tax has been paid in respect thereof being treated as a loss so as to give ground for relief in a subsequent year of assessment.
15. Income Tax (surtax assessments)
Resolved,
That no provision in regulations of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for surtax to be assessed and charged by the Special Commissioners at an office or a particular office of theirs shall be taken to affect or to have affected the validity of any assessment to surtax, wherever made by them and whether made before or after the passing of this resolution.
16. Income Tax (profits tax not to be a deduction, etc.)
Resolved,
That, as respects the year 1951–52 and subsequent years of assessment,—

(a) profits tax for any chargeable accounting period ending after the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-one shall not be a deduction in computing profits or gains or losses for income tax purposes or be reckoned as expenses of management for the purpose of any income tax relief for expenses of management;

(b) foreign tax allowed as a credit against the profits tax for any such period shall not be treated for income tax purposes as reducing the amount of any income.

17. Income Tax (charges consequential on introduction of excess profits levy)
Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise such increases in the income tax payable by any person for the year 1951–52 or any subsequent

1321
year of assessment as may result from extending any enactment relating to relief for double taxation, with or without modifications, to any excess profits levy provided for by any Act of the present session.

18. PROFITS TAX
Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise such increases in the profits tax payable by any person for any past, current or future chargeable accounting periods as may result from amending the law relating to the computation of profits or gains or losses for income tax or profits tax purposes or the law relating to allowances, deductions or charges for income tax purposes which affect the profits tax, from extending any enactment affecting the profits tax, with or without modifications, to any excess profits levy provided for by any Act of the present session, from dividing chargeable accounting periods and from raising the limit on the amounts which Lloyd's and other underwriters may pay into special reserve funds.

19. EXCESS PROFITS LEVY
Resolved,
That where the profits of bodies corporate and others arising after the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-one exceed a certain standard, a tax, which shall be known as the excess profits levy and shall not be deductible in computing profits or gains or losses for income tax and profits tax purposes, shall be charged equal to thirty per cent. of the excess, and any Act of the present session giving effect to this resolution may, amongst other things, extend or apply to the levy, with or without modifications, any enactment relating to any other tax, and contain special provisions applicable to particular classes of cases.

ESTATE DUTY
20. Estate Duty (exemptions for members of armed forces, etc.)
Resolved,
That, with a view to making better provision for exemption or relief from estate duty in the case of seamen, marines, soldiers and airmen dying in the service of Her Majesty on or after the twelfth day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and in other cases of persons dying on or after that date from injury received or disease contracted while they were subject to the Naval Discipline Act, military law or the Air Force Act, it is expedient to repeal the enactments relating to exemption or relief from estate duty in such cases.
21. Estate Duty (amendment of Finance Act, 1940)
Resolved,
That Part IV (as amended) of the Finance Act, 1940 (which deals mainly with the charge of estate duty on the assets of certain companies where property has been transferred thereto by the deceased), shall have effect as
1322
if any reference therein to a transfer of property (except in the definition of "payment" in section fifty-nine) included a reference to a payment of money, and as if the expressions "disposition" and "value" respectively, in relation to money, included payment and amount.

GENERAL
22. Amendment of the law
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance, so, however, that this resolution shall not extend to giving any relief from purchase tax otherwise than by making the same provision for chargeable goods of whatever description or by reducing the first, second or third rate of the tax generally for all goods to which that rate applies.
5.27 p.m.
Mr. C. R. Attlee: I should like at the outset to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on having got through the ordeal of presenting a Budget. That in itself is an achievement. He has been lucid, but I think he will agree that it is not a very easy Budget to sum up. It really requires a great deal more mental arithmetic than I am capable of working out as to what is given and what is taken away. We shall need a little time to work it out to see exactly what various individuals and groups of people stand to gain or lose and how these various burdens are distributed.
We note that the Lord President of the Council has been completely thrown over. His declaration at the time of the Election is now null and void and one presumes that he has tendered his resignation. It is also clear that whatever advantages may have been given to sections of the population, the halving almost of the food subsidies itself means a steep rise in the cost of living. I understand that the reduction of the cost of living was the chief plank in the propaganda of the party opposite at Election time.
There are a number of detailed matters which I confess I could not follow. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ran over pretty quickly a whole number of minor points, and I could not tell whether anyone would be for or against them. I regret that he has again raised the Bank rate. That increases our burden on the public debt. I gathered when he did it

1323
before that it was to have some psychological effect on the people at home. I gather from his speech that when he does it now it is to give a guarantee of good faith to our foreign friends. I think he will pay a big price for that.
Broadly speaking, this is a Budget in which there are good things, bad things and indifferent things; and until I have had a little more time to look at it, I am not making a final verdict about its total effect on the people with whom we are most concerned: the mass of the people of this country.
Chairman to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Butcher.]
Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

EDUCATION, WALES
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Butcher.]
5.31 p.m.
Mr. George Thomas: I welcome the opportunity of raising in the House this afternoon the question of education in the Principality of Wales, and it is a good thing that the House has given us such a good interval for our debate.
I want to raise the question of the effect of the Government's education policy on the schools throughout Wales, where one of the outstanding characteristics of the people is a passionate desire to give their children a sound education. There is no country in the world where the value of a good education is more appreciated than in Wales, and in no part of the United Kingdom has the Conservative Party's mean approach to the service of education caused more anxiety and alarm.
I want, first, to refer to the building programme throughout the Principality. I understand that no less than five Welsh local authorities have been refused a single building project during the coming year; that in Breconshire, Montgomeryshire, Merthyr, Anglesey and Pembroke-shire not a single building project is included in the Estimates which the Minister is prepared to approve.
1324
In addition, there are five Welsh local authorities for each of whom only one building project has been approved: Newport, Denbigh, Caernarvonshire, Merioneth and Swansea, Swansea, that received such a severe buffeting in the late war and which has such a great need. is, I understand, allowed only one building project by the Ministry during the coming year.
In Wales, we have our share of schools that are a disgrace to a civilised community. In the days just prior to the late war, the Leader of the Liberal Party was responsible for the production of a report on the causes of tuberculosis in the Principality. One of the major causes that he submitted in his report to the House was the condition of the rural schools of Wales, where the water runs down the walls and round the floor, and where on a wet day water is everywhere except in the school tap—and usually there is none there.
I ask the Minister, who I am very glad to see present, whether she is satisfied that she is not sentencing another generation of Welsh children to the awful conditions that have already been criticised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It may well be that an hon. Member opposite will say, "Why was it not put right? You have been in power for six years; therefore all these village schools should have been put right and we ought to have brand new schools everywhere."
The House will be aware that we have had more school building in Wales in the last six years than in the previous 25 years. No one, therefore, can point a finger across to this side of the House and say that we did not have a square deal. We should have liked to have had more, but we had more than we had ever had from any Government that has been in power during my lifetime. I warn the Minister that she will be committing a crime against the next generation of Welsh children if she now puts the brake on any new school buildings in the counties which I have quoted.
I want to refer to the effect of Circular 242, which the Minister, I know, is not very often allowed to forget. When we look through the economies which have been decided upon in the Principality of Wales as the result of the initiative of the Minister herself, we cannot but be

1325
alarmed at the prospects for our children. The City of Cardiff, which the Joint Under-Secretary of State responsible for Welsh Affairs has the honour to represent with myself and my colleague, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), has decided upon a cut of £63,000, a 3½ per cent. cut in its original estimate.
It so happens that the party in power and the local authority in the City of Cardiff are not unsympathetic, to say the least, to the right hon. Lady. Indeed, at times of general elections all those who are in power in Cardiff support the opposite side of the House. I submit that these are not people who would have been anxious to go too far in matters educational.
We have a most progressive chairman of the education authority in the Principality of Cardiff, a man of the party opposite and not of my party, but one whom we all acknowledge to have a very deep interest in matters educational in the Principality. People who are interested in education, regardless of their party, are aghast at the way in which the Ministry are putting the brake upon authorities who want to do the right thing by their children. As the Minister will know, we already have in Cardiff a large amount of leeway to make up, but once again we shall have to mark time and another generation will miss its chance. We can never make up to those children who miss their chance today what they will lose.
Let us look at North Wales, Flintshire. I see that there they have decided that they will have to spend less on furniture. Well and good. But they are cutting down the amount they intend to spend on textbooks for our children. They are to spend less on stationery and less on nursery and primary schools. They have also decided upon an increase in the size of classes.
Most hon. Members are aware that I am a schoolmaster by profession. I say to the House that when a schoolmaster asks for smaller classes it is not because it is easier for the schoolmaster. Indeed, it is a great deal harder for the schoolmaster with a small class than with a large class, because so much more personal attention can be given to the children in a small class than in a large
1326
one, where the schoolmaster congratulates himself if he is able to keep order. I believe that in Flintshire grave damage will be done to the education service by the cuts that have been decided upon.
When I look at the County of Glamorganshire, I find that there is an estimated cut of £183,705, which represents a cut of 3.09 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) will probably want to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker in the course of the debate, so I will leave the subject of Breckonshire to him to deal with.
In Pembrokeshire they have decided to save money by the appointment of younger teachers. I am all for younger teachers having appointments, but I do hope they will not say in Pembrokeshire that experience does not count. They have already asked the advice of the Minister, or sought her observations, about refusing admission to schools of children who have not reached the age of five years on 1st April next. Apparently they want to dispense with all nursery classes and nursery schools. I hope that when the Minister replies she will give me the assurance, as she did to one of my hon. Friends about another authority, that she will not countenance this attack upon the nursery schools in the Pembrokeshire area.
I notice that the Pembrokeshire authority proposes to reduce by £3,000 their estimate for the upkeep of school buildings. I submit to the Minister that this is a short-sighted policy. If we do not spend on the repair of our school buildings this year, we shall only have a bigger bill than ever next year. I hope that the Minister will intimate to that authority that she has no desire for that to be done. There are the usual economies in the youth service, in technical institutes and evening classes. It is a sorry story with which I hope the Minister will deal when she replies tonight.
Amongst the authorities in Wales of which I know who are proposing to try to save some money by having fewer teachers, Flintshire and Pembrokeshire stand out. Amongst those who propose to save money on further education, scholarships and aid to students, Pembrokeshire stands out. On reduced estimates for repairs and decorations Flint-shire and Pembrokeshire again stand out,

1327
as does Flintshire on the question of school equipment.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us tonight an idea of the general effect of her circular on the service of education, on the buildings that are available and also its effect upon scholarships and aids to students. I hope also that she will give us an assurance tonight that she will not countenance an attempt by the meaner authorities of the Principality to cut down their aid to students going to college.
Now I want to refer to a question of which I have already given notice to the Minister. It concerns handicapped children and the provision of a school for them in the Principality. Last Thursday I asked the Minister if she would make a statement concerning the progress being made in the provision of a school for physically handicapped children in Wales. I ask the House to note with care her reply. The right hon. Lady said:
"I hope that the Glamorgan local education authority will proceed with the purchase of a suitable site and with the planning of the school at an early date."—[OFFIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 634.]
I suggest that answer was intended to convey to the House that this project had the full blessing of the Minister to go ahead as quickly as the local authority could do so. That is the only possible meaning we can put upon the reply which the Minister gave: that she said to the Glamorgan County Council that the sooner they could do it, the better. That was the impression I received, and the Minister will remember that I so fell for the reply that I thanked her for it.
Now I find that the Director of Education for the County of Glamorgan has written to Mr. Northam, the Secretary of the Cardiff and District Spastics Association, a letter which makes nonsense of the misleading reply which the Minister gave to the House last Thursday. I propose to read the letter:
"Dear Mr. Northam, I thank you for your letter of 27th February. As you are probably aware, the Glamorgan Authority had proposed to proceed with the erection of a hospital school for physically handicapped children, including spastics, in the year 1952–53. This school, of course, was to provide for the needs of neighbouring Authorities (including Cardiff as well). The Ministry of Education declared some time ago their readiness to include this school in the authorised building programme
1328
for 1952–53, but a communication has recently been received that consideration will be given to the inclusion of this school in the provisional building programme for 1953–54."
The Director goes on to say:
"Although I regret that I have no encouraging news to give you, I can assure you that the recent decision "—
that is, the Minister's decision—
"caused great disappointment to the members of the Authority who are only too well aware of the very great need to improve the educational provision for handicapped children. Yours sincerely, E. Stephens, Director of Education."
I suggest that inadvertently the Minister misled the House last Thursday afternoon with the reply she gave to me. She certainly avoided revealing the full truth of the answer that my Question sought to bring out. Surely the Minister will be ready to apologise tonight for misleading at least one hon. Member and, I believe, all hon. Members on this side of the House on that important question?
There is a special need for a school for handicapped children in the Principality of Wales, where it is estimated that we have nearly 400 spastic children. These are children who have no muscular control but whose minds can be as sharp as razors. Indeed, I have met some of these spastic individuals with first-class honours degrees. Given the opportunity, they can obtain out of life not quite as much perhaps as the normally healthy able individual, but much more than otherwise they would have.
There is not a school from the north to the south or from the east to the west of Wales catering for spastic children, and now that project again has to be postponed apparently. I ask the Minister to recognise that the policy indicated in that letter from the Director of Education—and I have no reason to doubt that he is conveying the truth to my constituents—would be a cruel, unnecessary and shortsighted one.
We are proud of the fact that we are a democracy, and we are living at a time when the world is divided by the ideological struggle of this century. Surely in a world like this the school takes on a new importance. In my opinion, in a democracy the schoolmaster is quite as important, and perhaps more important, than the sergeant major, and the class room is of more importance than the barrack square. I hope we are not going

1329
to cut down the provisions or refuse facilities for provisions of schools for spastic children in Wales because our money is to go for armaments.
Decent people in all parties in Wales—we are not claiming a monopoly of decency—will resent the holding up of this school. I ask the Minister to give the House an assurance that the Glamorgan authority shall have the "all clear" to get on with this school for spastic children.
I understand there have been approaches to the Ministry in connection with the school for subnormal children for the counties of Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire and Cardiganshire. I am not in a position to say what state of negotiation that matter has reached, but I earnestly hope that here again the Minister will give the "go ahead" to those authorities. We are very proud that during the previous Administration we set up the Joint Education Committee for Wales, and local authorities in Wales are co-operating in a magnificent manner to make provisions that as individuals they cannot make for their children. I ask the Minister to make sure that where joint endeavours of this sort are entered upon she will not be niggardly in her approach.
I wish to refer to the question of the size of classes in the Principality. We have a good record in this regard, and I think that generally the size of classes in the Principality is smaller than it was in England in the years between the wars. We have always regarded education as a top priority. Working people there will sacrifice almost everything to give their youngsters a chance of a good education. Are we once again to see the size of classes go up throughout the Principality in order that a few pounds shall be saved here or there?
I suggest this is a short-sighted policy which we shall have to put right when the opportunity arises. But it would be much better if the Minister asserted her authority and proved she is the Minister and that the voice we have heard this afternoon is not the voice of the Minister and that she realises all that opportunity denied to youngsters can create in frustration and resentment and will lend her assistance to those who above all are concerned with a square deal
1330
for our kiddies who, after all, are not responsible for the mess in which the world finds itself at present.
The people of Wales are a peaceful people, but now they are on the alert and on guard. They are watching the Minister very carefully and I advise her—
Mr. Kenneth Thompson: We have only to look at the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) to see that.
Mr. Thomas: We are always a peaceful people, but ready to fight for a just cause, and then we are as warlike as the rest. I warn the Minister and her Parliamentary Secretary and hon. Members behind her who represent scattered Tory seats in Wales that they will not be in the next Parliament if she does not show that justice and consideration which is our due.
5.56 p.m.
Mr. Percy Morris: I gladly avail myself of this unexpected opportunity of reinforcing the eloquent plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). He has been good enough not to confine his remarks to the constituency he represents but has extended them to the title he has given the Adjournment debate namely, Welsh education.
I do not wish to engage in repetition, but I wish to assure the Minister that what my hon. Friend has said about spastic schools is of great urgency for the whole of South and West Wales, and that my hon. Friend has earned the gratitude of the Welsh authorities by giving such emphasis to the matter this afternoon. For many years the principal export from Wales seemed to be teachers, preachers and lawyers, but a new situation has developed there in recent years.
Under the encouragement and guidance of the last Government we had embarked, in the County Borough of Swansea, on a very progressive programme of educational facilities for our children. We were hoping—in fact plans had been approved and a site selected—to provide a college of technology that would cater not only for the needs of the children of Swansea but for the whole of South and West Wales. The need for such a college is obvious to anybody who has taken an

1331
interest in the industrial development of Wales. Unhappily, on account of Circular 242 and the general atmosphere that now prevails, it seems that that college will not be erected for many years. I beg the Minister to give the matter her attention.
I understand that colleagues of mine from Swansea are waiting on the Department tomorrow to indicate difficulties with which they are confronted in endeavouring to implement a programme which was approved under the last Government. They have made very serious efforts to economise wherever possible but they have not made the mistake of urging an increase in the numbers in classes and neither are they willing to hinder the development of nursery schools. They have assumed that the Minister really means what she says in her circular, that they are not to interfere with the fabric of education. But if they are not to interfere with it they will require some assistance from the right hon. Lady.
Not only are we supporting the claim for this school for spastic children, but we are asking for this college of technology. I would make particular reference to my own constituency, which is a badly blitzed area and especially in need of new schools being built and other schools being re-constructed and modernised. I know of one school for girls which was put up as a temporary school and has already been in existence for 30 years. Instead of having increased educational facilities and of being allowed to widen our scope in that growing industrial area, we are being told that we cannot afford it.
I should have liked to have given the right hon. Lady more notice of this matter. I appreciate that she may not be able to answer on the spur of the moment about the college I have mentioned. But I ask the House to believe that tonight the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, has been the very voice of Wales in these matters. If the right hon. Lady is able to give the assurance he has asked for, and if the blitzed areas will have their difficulties recognised and will be given proper encouragement to provide these facilities, not merely for the training of teachers and preachers, but to provide the technicians so badly required in
1332
the industries of Wales, we shall feel that this Adjournment debate has been really worth while.
6.1 p.m.
Mr. Roderic Bowen: I should like to associate myself in general with the observations already made. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to two matters in relation to education in which my constituency and neighbouring constituencies are particularly interested at the moment.
The counties of Carmarthen, Pembroke and Cardigan have prepared a scheme for a residential special school for about 60 educationally sub-normal children. This is a scheme which is long overdue, because at the moment no facilities exist in any of these three counties for the educating and training of sub-normal children, and at last a scheme has been prepared. They have a building in view, and, subject to Ministerial sanction, there is no reason why this much needed facility should not be provided.
I need hardly emphasise the need for the school, because there is a very real problem here. Some 60 sub-normal children are now attending an ordinary school in the ordinary way, placing a very great burden upon their parents at home and upon the staff of the schools, which is necessarily unfair to children attending the school in the ordinary way.
Quite apart from that, the fact that these facilities do not exist means that these sub-normal children have very little prospect of that additional training and development which would mean so much to them in enabling them to face life in the ordinary way after suitable training. I therefore urge the Minister to look most sympathetically upon this scheme, because these authorities ought to have moved in this matter long ago.
It is a long-standing problem, but at last they have faced up to the difficulties; these three counties have got together, and that is something which is not easy. The three local education authorities have combined and cooperated to provide a joint school for the three counties, and I hope the Minister will do nothing which will in any way retard the provision of this residential school for sub-normal children in this area.

1333
Another matter to which I wish to direct the Minister's attention is the provision of Welsh books. This has been receiving and is receiving attention from numerous bodies in Wales today, and the joint working party on the publication of Welsh books met recently. I do not want to go into the details of various proposals put forward, but I urge the Minister to adopt a most sympathetic attitude towards this problem.
We have, for example, in Cardiganshire a very excellent county library service—buildings and mobile libraries. There is, contrary to the position in many other parts of Wales, a real demand for Welsh books, and one of the main difficulties is the lack of availability of new Welsh books to meet that demand.
The same problem arises in our schools. The staffs of schools are anxious to give varied and interesting instruction through the medium of Welsh, and if that is to be done satisfactorily there must be an adequate supply of Welsh books. This is a problem which affects, in the main the rural part of Wales, and I urge the Minister to treat most sympathetically the approaches which will be made to her to attempt to solve this problem.
6.7 p.m.
Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I wish briefly to draw attention to two points affecting the Welsh educational scheme more than any other at the present time. The first is the question of assistance grants to students provided by local education authorities, which are almost the only agency for this kind of grant, or have been for two or three years.
It would be invidious of me to single out any particular local education authority for deprecation in this respect, and I will not quote examples county by county. But I feel sure that I carry with me Members representing Welsh constituencies on both sides of the House when I say that the variation in the extent and scope of the county assistance grants to Welsh students in universities is most marked.
As a former lecturer of the university most concerned in the Principality, I am bound to say that the arbitrary difference between the grants made available by county A and the grants made available to another student by county B is having a very bad psychological effect upon the students. I wonder whether it would be
1334
possible for the Department to bring some kind of benevolent pressure to bear upon the various local education authorities with a view to their more or less "uniformising" their grant policies.
I could give individual examples of say, two students in the same university college studying side by side, reading the same subject, following the same degree scheme, having more or less the same qualifications and scholastic attainments, both entering the university at the same time, but coming from two different local education authority areas and differing in the most marked fashion in the assistance they obtain from their local education authorities.
Mr. Bowen: Does the hon. Gentleman also recognise that that happens in many instances with children attending the same school and living in the same village?
Mr. Roberts: And living in the same street. I recall to mind an example of two university students both in their second year, reading for the same degree, both the children of slate quarriers, and in very much the same economic circumstances, yet because of a certain lack of cohesion in the matter of grants they were receiving different assistance. It varies from county to county, and it varies most arbitrarily also within a single county. I therefore hope that some kind of pressure may be brought to bear on. or leadership given in, that rather difficult and upsetting state of affairs.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) referred to the interest which is now felt in Wales about the future of the publishing of Welsh books. I happen to have the honour of serving on a small Home Office committee which is investigating among other things the provision of Welsh books, particularly in schools. I will not anticipate the findings of that committee because it has not yet decided on any recommendations, but I will say that we are all familiar with the extraordinary fact that out of the £35 per pupil which is spent annually in primary and secondary schools in England and Wales, as little as 6s. 5d. is spent on the provision of school books. Now that is an extraordinary position for any educational system to be in.
In Wales the position is complicated and worsened by the fact that most of our

1335
education authorities are under a statutory obligation to provide reading material in two languages. The problem for the English authorities is a very different one. They find that the cost of teachers' salaries, maintenance, and so on, restricts their expenditure on actual reading books to some 6s. 5d. a year, and that is bad enough in a monolingual area such as we have in England. But in Wales, where the vast majority of local education authorities have an obligation to pursue a bilingual policy of education, that 6s. 5d. must be divided between English reading material and Welsh reading material.
That is not a satisfactory position, and I appeal to the Minister—and to the Parliamentary Secretary whom I believe is sympathetic on this point, as no doubt is the Minister—to see what can be done, not only to have special grants but to vary perhaps the application of the grants formula to the Welsh educational authorities, who have this added obligation of providing reading material in Welsh as well as in English.
6.14 p.m.
Mr. Raymond Gower: I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments. I can from my knowledge endorse so much of what has been ably said by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and others. Doubtless the Minister is aware, or has noted, the fact that in Wales we tend to set even more store on education than perhaps some parts of England. I think that is true of Scotland, too, possibly due to the history of two countries relatively poor economically, with their populations tending to set a very great deal of importance on bettering the conditions of their children.
That may explain much of the history of education in both Wales and Scotland. In that respect, self-help, if I may so describe it, has featured largely in the historical development of education, and I ask the Minister whether in future, in economies necessitated beyond the present ones, the grants to which reference has been made should be the subject of economies last of all, for they enable so many of the products of our schools to go to universities. They should be the last things to be touched.
1336
With regard to the schools plan, we shall never, in any part of the country, have complete satisfaction. It will be a very long time before anybody can say with any certainty that there are enough schools or teachers. I think that some of the trouble since the war in my own constituency in South Wales, as indeed in other parts of the country, has been due to the fact that, although the schools were planned and have been built, at the same time building development has occurred, with movements and increases of population, so that already some of those school buildings are somewhat inadequate for the neighbourhoods they have to serve. One can only hope that means may be improvised to tide us over that until such time as we can build additional schools.
In that respect, I wish to refer to some of the smaller village schools. It may be said with some justification that these schools are not always as satisfactory as the more modern and more spacious schools we are now erecting. Yet, as we are so terribly short of school buildings, it may be of some help and assistance to lengthen the life of some of these schools, some of which have been forced to close, just as a stop-gap, as it were, until we can afford all the spacious buildings we require.
With those few remarks, I endorse what has been said in this pleasant and non-controversial discussion. We all realise that the Minister's instructions have been by nature of a request rather than a dictate, and that any essential economies will be effected by the local authorities concerned with sense and in such a manner as not to affect the essential basic services at all.
6.23 p.m.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: We are extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) for introducing the subject of Welsh education this afternoon and giving us the opportunity of discussing it. Although he comes from the deep south and I come from the far north, we are at one in our love of education.
In the first place, I should like to follow what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) on the question of county grants. My experience as a member of a local education authority is that the present operation of these grants gives rise to a sense of

1337
great frustration amongst students at our university colleges. Today, one sees a student from one county, having obtained two subjects at the advanced level—in what was formerly the higher certificate examination—without a grant from his county authority. He may come from poor circumstances. In the same university there may be a student with similar qualifications from another county, possibly in the same lodgings. Yet the second may be in receipt of a generous grant. That gives rise to a sense of frustration in the student and throughout the entire county from which he comes.
I do not know what the Minister can do about this matter, because I appreciate that she will be unwilling to interfere with that discretion which is the traditional right of local education authorities. However, if she could bring some benevolent pressure to bear on local education authorities in Wales, it would have a salutary effect throughout the Principality, and particularly among the students in our university colleges.
My second point is about school books. As the Minister is aware, at least in some parts of Wales we lay considerable stress on the importance of the Welsh language. Even in those areas where the Welsh language is not common currency—for example, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West—there is great sympathy with our aspirations in this direction. Possibly the Minister may be aware of that, and certainly the Joint Under-Secretary who is responsible for Welsh affairs should know of it.
Fifty years ago it was almost a major crime to speak the Welsh language in a primary school in Wales. The small boy who spoke the language in a primary school was severely caned by the headmaster. But circumstances have changed. We have made progress. Today we lay great emphasis on the importance of the Welsh language. In the county of Anglesey and other counties the Welsh language is given equal status, as indeed it should be, with the English language. Children are allowed to learn their mother tongue as a first language from the moment they enter school.
If children are to learn the Welsh language adequately, then schools must be provided with an adequacy of Welsh books. Today the situation is that they
1338
do not receive sufficient Welsh books. This may result in a decline in the knowledge of the language. It is not an understatement to say that the schools of Wales are starved of Welsh books. This is not because Welsh publishers are unable to publish the books in Welsh, but because the present grants for schools are not adequate even to support the production of reprints. Of the £35, which is the average for England and Wales for educating each child in maintained primary and secondary schools, only 6s. 5d. is, on the average, available for the purchase of school hooks.
In Wales, after the heavy cost of English secondary and primary school books has been met out of this sum, the amount left for Welsh books is insufficient to sustain Welsh publishing. Not only do we have the problem of the insufficient supply of Welsh books, but we also have the accompanying problem of the Welsh publishing companies. They are in very deep waters these days.
The solution to this problem can only be in immediate action on the part of the education authorities. If the Minister will encourage the education authorities to supply a sufficiency of Welsh books to schools and give consideration to increased grants she will make an important contribution towards saving our language.
My third and last point is one which is not solely applicable to Wales. It is a problem common to all rural Britain. I refer to the question of transporting children to school. In the sparsely populated areas of Wales this problem is paramount. I have not decided how it can be solved, except possibly by a system of equalisation grants. For instance, the cost of transporting children to school in a City such as Cardiff or Liverpool is negligible compared with the cost in a rural constituency such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon or my own.
This gives rise to an inequitable state of affairs as between the urban and the rural areas. I hope that the Minister will look into this entire matter, because it places an unfair burden upon our rural areas. These are the three matters to which I should like the Minister to give her sympathetic consideration.
6.28 p.m.
Mr. T. W. Jones: I wish to confirm what has been said by previous speakers in this debate. I repeat that the people of Wales love education above all else. The most interesting story about the Principality is the one relating to the growth and establishment of the Welsh University. It was not established by wealthy patrons, as other universities have been established, but by the coppers of the poor miners and the quarrymen of North Wales. They went out on Saturday afternoons and collected penny by penny to enable them to establish the first college at Aberystwyth. We love education for education's sake.
I am glad to see present my right hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell). He possesses a miners' first-class certificate, but he had never any ambition to be a first-class manager in a pit. He qualified simply for the sake of qualifying. He studied for the sake of the study. I emphasise that we do that in Wales. What the right hon. Member did can easily be multiplied a hundredfold.
I implore the Minister not to economise by a single penny on education in Wales. There are many reasons for that. I will give one. The Prime Minister has established a new office. We now have a Minister for Welsh Affairs. I am sure that the Minister is anxious to make himself popular with our people. He can do that. I am glad to see that his deputy is present today. But it does not matter what that Minister does, however good he may be in other respects, if he lets us down on education, then down will go his popularity, too. Nothing is more certain than that.
Again, our schools are such that half of them should be treated as slums. In the country villages there are school buildings which are not even fit for animal habitation, let alone for children. We should remember that the child spends 12 years of his life in these buildings and the teacher spends about 50 years there. If there is to be economy, the classes will be increased in size. The Minister might say, "No, we will not allow that," but it can be done in most insidious ways.
I was a teacher some years ago, and I remember H.M. inspector of schools coming round about 1929, in the period following the Labour minority Govern-
1340
ment. He went to the headmaster and said, "Jones, I see, has over 60 children in his class. That number must be reduced to below 50." The headmaster replied "I cannot do it. I have neither the buildings nor the staff." The inspector then said, "That is your pigeon, not mine, and when I come here again I want to see 49 on the register."
The inspector went away; what did the headmaster do? He took about a dozen of my children, and placed their names on another register, but left the children with me. I still had 60 children in my class, but had credit for only 49. I was worse off than I was before. I am sure that has been the game in many cases. There are, as the Minister will recognise, tricks in every trade, and even in every profession. I implore the Minister, so far as the Principality is concerned, not to reduce the allocation for the local education authorities of the 13 counties of Wales, whatever other economies are made.
One other point which I want to impress on the Minister, is that, apart from the region around Wrexham, technical education is unknown in North Wales. Children in these areas have no opportunity for getting technical education, and when jobs which demand technical skill and knowledge are available, we have to go across the border to get the people to fill them.
That is not good enough, because we have the brains and the raw material already there. Our children are as good as any others in Britain, and better than most, and I want those children to have the very best opportunities of education. So far as I can see, if the present Government remain in office for the next 10 years—and I hope to goodness they will not be there for more than 12 months—we shall have another generation of boys in North Wales totally deprived of this opportunity of receiving technical education. I appeal to the Minister that, whatever else she may do, she should not make economies in education so far as Wales is concerned.
6.33 p.m.
Mr. Tudor Watkins: You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that most Members of Parliament have been flustered by the Budget, but we who come from Wales never get

1341
flustered; we try at all times to get together when there is something in which we all believe quite sincerely.
On this occasion, I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) for initiating this debate. I agree, of course, with what he says, but if had told us last night that he expected to rise just after five o'clock today to open this debate, I am sure that many of my colleagues would have prepared even greater speeches than those they have delivered. But already sufficient has been said to get the Welsh Department going full speed ahead for a long time, and perhaps the little additions that I propose to make will give them extra work still.
First of all, may I join with other hon. Members in imploring the Minister not to cut down anything to do with schools for handicapped children. A plea has already been made on behalf of spastic children, and when the Minister comes to the pleasant parts of mid-Wales round Llandrindod Wells in the summer time, I hope she will see the fine residential school for the deaf which has been provided by the Joint Education Committee for Wales. If that sort of thing can be done for deaf children, a similar project for spastic children would be a very good thing.
I am a member of a local education authority, and I must say that, if we were to take a lead from the majority of Welsh educational authorities, not a great deal would be cut in the education estimates for this year. I am very glad to find that there is to be an increase in the Estimate over last year, as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon. Therefore, in my opinion, although I know that the costs have gone up, there ought to be some indication given by the Minister this evening that any great project that is planned for the 1952–53 financial year will not be cut at all.
I know that Circular 245 and other instructions have been sent out, and that, as a result, in my own county of Brecon, a scheme to which some of us have looked forward for a very long time is to be slowed down and is not to be started in the next financial year at all. It is a grammar school for boys at Penlan in Brecon. Even the most ardent education-
1342
ists in my county realise the present difficulties, but we all regret that this school has had to be put back.
I am also concerned with the other county which I represent—Radnorshire. I know that they got really frightened on education by Circular 242, and reduced their estimates by a 2½d. rate. I hope the Minister will look into these estimates very carefully, and see that the proper provision of education in that county is not touched at all. Cutting down an expenditure on school playgrounds is not real saving.
I have in Radnor the only authority in Wales which does not make the clothing grant for children attending at a primary or secondary schools. Surely this is bound to have a bad result on the children going to the schools. I hope that the Minister, by peaceful persuasion, will be able to convince that authority that, if there is a need for the clothing grant, they should make provision for it in their estimates and that the Minister has power to do that, as I am sure she will.
In Circular 245, there is some indication that, in regard to some minor projects, the capital expenditure shall not exceed a certain sum. I hope that some of these minor projects will not be cut down a great deal, when it comes to maintenance, repair and improvement of village schools which are not to be closed. Again, it is vital for the success of the schools meals service that consideration should be given to good sanitary arrangements and reliable water supplies.
I listened in Brecon the other day to the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers giving an address on education, and he made a very strong point of the increased cost of stationery and equipment. It is vitally important, although the average man in the street does not realise it, to recognise how much these costs have gone up, and, again, I hope the Minister will look into the matter and see that sufficient material is available in that direction for all our schools.
Some people on my own local authority seem to have been bitten by the economy bug, and they seem to think that they can make a cut in the supply of plimsolls for children in primary schools who go in for physical training. I hope the Minister will examine such estimates when they come before her.

1343
I would also join in the plea that has been made that greater consideration should be given to the subject of technical education because of the years of depression caused by only one type of industry in South Wales. We have been concerned only with the mining type of education, but now, with a diversity of industry, we require the provision of a great deal of technical education, and I hope the Minister will see that everything possible shall be done to encourage these schemes of development in technical education.
I was very glad to find that the Minister, in reply to Questions on two occasions recently, said that she was not in favour of closing village schools. During the period of office of the last Government, I was lucky enough to secure the Adjournment debate, although, rather different from the situation tonight, I had only half an hour in which to put my case. Nevertheless, I was satisfied with the result of that debate and a review was made of the question of closing village schools under the development plans.
I am sure that the Minister agrees that village schools ought not to be closed merely because some supra-educationists want to centralise everything. The village school is a great institution in Wales, as, I am sure, in other countries, too. I hope that the Minister, in view of her announcement to the House, will examine the proposals for the closing of village schools with a view to maintaining them wherever possible, and will not agree to their being closed merely because the education authority concerned asks that they should be closed. The views of the parents and objectors should be given due consideration. I trust that when objections are sent to the Minister, local education authorities will see that through their respective sub-committees every consideration is given to them.
As a general rule, such objections are not usually gone into in any detail. I ask the right hon. Lady to carry out the undertaking given to me on an Adjournment debate some years ago that parents and other objectors would have the opportunity to put forward their points of view. I warn the Minister that unless something is done about the matter in both Radnor and Breconshire, I shall
1344
take the first opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
I know that the reply might be—what can one do with schools which have a roll of only 12, 14 or 20 pupils? I hope the Minister will not take the figures sent in years ago in connection with these development plans, but that she will examine them in the light of such new circumstances as rural depopulation and increased productivity in agriculture. In that respect, the village school is a great asset. I conclude by repeating that I am very glad my hon. Friend has had this opportunity of raising the subject of education in Wales tonight I hope the Under-Secretary responsible for Welsh Affairs will not go to his chief and say that because we have had this debate tonight we do not want another Welsh debate in the near future.
6.44 p.m.
Rev. Llywelyn Williams: I wish to refer to one matter which, so far, has not been mentioned in this debate—the very welcome appearance in the Principality during these last few years of Welsh schools. By that, I mean schools in which all the subjects are taught through the medium of the Welsh language. This is something completely new in the history of the Principality and is an innovation which I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House will warmly approve.
In many instances, these Welsh schools have been brought into being because of the desire of parents in many areas, who have, unfortunately, become Anglicised, that their children should become conversant with the Welsh language, with its intrinsic beauty and its richness. It is well known to all of us who have the future of Welsh education close at heart that in many instances these schools have become possible owing to the sacrifice made by the parents. In Swansea there is only one such school for a population of about 180,000. This means that extra travelling is incurred.
There is, of course, the problem of buildings. In many townships in Wales, chapel vestries are being used for this purpose. I appeal to the Minister to give every support possible to this wonderful feature in our Welsh educational life. I know that in the last analysis the preservation and continuation of the Welsh

1345
language is a matter for the hearth, but the parents can be helped considerably by the education authorities in the setting up of these schools. I regard these Welsh schools as oases in an and desert.
6.47 p.m.
The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh): All those who have taken part in this debate tonight have congratulated the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) on having got his debate so early on Budget day. They thought, perhaps, as I did, that hon. Members might continue to speak about the Budget. It would appear that they were so stunned by the glorious news that they felt it better to adjourn further discussion on the subject for today. This gave the House the opportunity to turn to education in Wales much earlier than was expected.
I would say at once that if there are any details about particular schools which I cannot give hon. Members at short notice tonight, I will make a point of letting them have them later. I was very anxious to have the opportunity of replying to this debate myself, because since I went to the Ministry I have made it a particular interest to look into the working of the Ministry of Education in Wales in order to get as much information as possible about the subject. I am not altogether a stranger to that part of the country, for when I was with the Ministry of Health during the war I went there several times. I shall always remember the kindness of the people of Wales to the evacuees who went into their homes.
As hon. Members know, I received a deputation and discussed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs how we could make better arrangements for education in Wales. A statement was made at that time, but I have since carried the matter rather further. We have decided, as a matter of policy, that as much as possible of the work of the Welsh Department is to be transacted in Cardiff. We are going to retain the existing structure which provides for units of the Welsh Department in both London and Cardiff, but the Cardiff office will be responsible for day to day decisions. Consultations will normally take place at that office unless, as sometimes happens, people prefer to travel to London. The Cardiff office is to be given the necessary staff to undertake this work.
Mr. G. Thomas: Does the right hon. Lady's announcement mean that the permanent Secretary will now be stationed at Cardiff?
Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment I will try to give him a picture of the whole thing. The Department will continue to be the responsibility of the permanent Secretary for Wales who will retain his London office as his headquarters.
The Assistant Secretary will also remain in London and will have the part-time assistance of a Principal. All other staffs will be stationed at Cardiff and will refer to London as and when necessary. The Cardiff office is to be called the Welsh Office of the Ministry of Education. It will be the headquarters of the Welsh inspectorate and of the Welsh priority officer. The Chief Inspector of Schools for Wales will be designated the Welsh Officer. I cannot promise that we can make the transfer before some date in May or June.
As for the Permanent Secretary, I think that the best plan is for him to have headquarters in London and to be travelling to and from Cardiff; otherwise, the Minister who, after all, is the Minister of Education for England and Wales, would not be able to keep in touch, as he or she should, and the Permanent Secretary would not be able to keep in touch with general policy and special arrangements. I think the arrangements we have made should bring some satisfaction and that when hon. Members have seen it working they will regard it as an improvement.
The first of the main points brought up in this debate was the question of what economies will take place as a result of the issue of Circular 242. As hon. Members have heard before, and were reminded again by the Chancellor of the Exchequer today, that we are spending more on education this year than we have ever spent in the history of this country. We shall be spending at least £6 million more than we spent last year in England and Wales.
The strange thing is, whether we speak English or learn to speak Welsh, that in neither language is an increase in the amount of money proposed to be spent translated by the word "cut." I sometimes ask myself whether if, in years to come, a Government find it necessary to

1347
spend less on education, that will be called an "increase."
We are to spend more than ever before. Do not let us forget that; we can be proud of it. I am as interested in education and in the great advantages of education as any hon. Member who has spoken in this debate. I think we can take a certain pride that in these times of desperate difficulty—and having heard the Chancellor today we should all realise that they are desperate—we in this country have taken the step, of which the whole world is aware, of placing a greater sum of money than ever before at the service of education.
It would be far better if we looked at the present position from that point of view. I agree that costs have gone up and that there are more children in schools. But we should not talk of cuts. Rather should we see what is the best value we can obtain from this extra money.
Hon. Members will agree that we have to look at primary, technical and secondary education and find out what is required. Having established that first priority, one has to go further and find out how much money can be spent on those requirements within the general arrangement.
Circular 242 asked local authorities to look again at the forecasts they had sent in last autumn. Those are fore-cases of the estimates they will be sending in next April. I think it is extremely difficult to put down estimates. One wants to be sure, especially if they are for a certain time ahead, that one is putting down enough. The forecasts we received in the autumn worked out at over £20 million more than we spent last year.
Since then some local authorities have said to me, "There is no need for you to send this circular. We always look at the estimates again and the cuts we are now making we would have made anyhow." I think there is a good deal in that and that when some local authorities look at the estimates and compare them with the forecasts, they do find that certain of their figures are too high.
The notice referring to 5 per cent. related to a target to be aimed at, and it was made perfectly clear that estimates
1348
were not to damage the essential fabric of education. I am as convinced today as when I signed that circular that if I had not sent it a great many local authorities might not have looked at some of the details, and that some of the expenditure we want devoted to priority needs and want to be used so carefully might have been spent in ways which—
Mr. W. G. Cove: On a point of order. Could the Minister tell us how the Welsh authorities have responded to Circular 242?
Miss Horsbrugh: Is that a point of order?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Miss Horsbrugh: I am trying to reply to those hon. Members who have asked me questions. Hon. Members brought up various point about which they are very anxious. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West mentioned several points.
When I receive the estimates in April, I will see what changes the local authorities have made. In some cases I have been asked for advice on nursery schools, divisional executives and several other matters, and those local authorities who have asked for it have received my advice. On the subject of nursery schools, divisional executives and other things, we have said that we are not in favour of indiscriminate cutting down from the point of view of finance, but that each service should be examined to see if it was useful and necessary and what it cost.
Mr. G. Thomas: Is it not a fact, however, that the Minister has sent definite instructions and a circular to each authority concerning its building projects? She has not made any reference to that up to now. I presume that she is making a general statement.
Miss Horsbrugh: Perhaps I was going too slowly. I was anxious to give information in reply to questions asked about Circular 242. I have said that I am waiting to see the estimates when they come in April and I have said that we are not asking for indiscriminate cutting.
I said in that circular that there would be a further circular on the building programme, because until we found out the

1349
amount of supplies and the exact state of the programmes of the authorities for 1951–52, it was not possible to make out a programme for the whole country. We had to wait to see what labour would be available, the amount of money we could spend and the exact state of the building programmes of the local authorities. We then issued Circular 245.
I have here a long list of various authorities. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West, mentioned certain authorities which, he said, had not been given a single projected new building. But they had none in their previous programme. I would prefer not to go into the details in relation to each authority by name, but I know that the hon. Member has no complaint to make in his own constituency.
We said in that circular—my predecessor worked out the plan—that we had to arrange to build in the areas where there was an increase in the school population and where there were also new housing estates where children would be coming to live and would be needing schools.
Mr. P. Morris: Will the right hon. Lady say whether she has considered the plight of a school completely destroyed by enemy action? Would that be a case for priority?
Miss Horsbrugh: What we had to see was that in each district there were school places for the school children who were there. They might have come into a new housing estate which had no school. That had to be a priority. There may have been an increase in the number of children in the area, due to the increased birthrate; so that there were more children to get into the school, in exactly the same way as if a school had been bombed and did not exist any more. There was a school population without a school.
But there are other things I should like to do. I should like to build schools to replace some of the old, bad schools, but my predecessor went ahead with the plan that I am on at this moment. Some years ago the previous Government quite clearly decided—probably when they decided to put up the school-leaving age—that the building would have to be concentrated on providing the extra school places. It was laid down in the plan, on which I am now working, that local authorities could not build simply for overcrowded
1350
or black-listed schools, but they must concentrate on the extra school places.
I do not think we can possibly turn back on that. If we allowed the building of better schools or extra schools to replace the bad schools, either we would not have school places for the children coming into school, or we would have to change the school-leaving age. If we are to have children in that number we must build for them and we shall have to wait until the large population has been through the school before we say "We will replace the black-listed schools and make all these improvements."
I believe that those are facts, and it is on that plan that I have tried to proceed. It is quite clear that a good deal of the building programme of 1951–52 was not completed. What happened—and I am sure hon. Members must know this from their own constituencies—was that the building programme became completely overloaded. We were trying to do more than we could and we were getting delays. It is no good having too many schools started and not completed, because children cannot be taken into those. I could quote examples from all over the country where the programme had to be scaled down because of the difficulties. Last year I was told of programmes where the steel did not come along and where there was not enough labour.
The change in the programme in Wales as a whole—for the Principality—is very small indeed. If the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, wants to look at the figures as a whole, I will give them to him.
Mr. G. Thomas: I tried the other day to elucidate the facts, but the Minister was even more elusive on that question than on most.
Miss Horsbrugh: I am sorry if I was elusive. The week before I was told I was filibustering. Now I try to be quick and I am told that I am elusive. With practice I shall, perhaps, improve.
Mr. Thomas: Keep right on to the end of the road.
Miss Horsbrugh: I think Wales has done well. Some projects are being held back slightly, but it will not mean as much as another year. It will be a few months. Wales as a whole is doing very well with its programme.

1351
I know the interest which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, has taken in these spastic children, and this school at Glamorgan. I have gone into the matter very carefully. At the moment we have only reached the point at which Glamorgan are considering entering on negotiations for a site. It is obvious that they will not be ready to start work on the school. It will be an entirely new building and the planning of it will take some time. None of us has had experience of this project, and it is the first one in Wales. It is physically impossible for these plans to be ready and the site prepared in this year—1952–53—but we hope to get it into next year's programme—1953–54.
Mr. Thomas: The authority is disappointed that the Ministry has said it will not be included in this year's programme.
Miss Horsbrugh: We should have liked to be able to include it in this year's programme, but it is not possible. Negotiations have not yet taken place for the site and all the arrangements for the planning of this new building have to be made. If the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, looks into the matter, he will see that it will take some time before we can begin the building work; but I want to make it clear that there will not be a delay. I know the work he has done and we want to see them getting down to this building, but the plan is not ready and there will have to be negotiations for the site.
Technical school plans are, I believe, going ahead as quickly as possible. I do not think there has been any considerable delay. During this year we expect starts to be made with the new technical colleges at Ammanford and Llandaff, and the technical institute at Pybwyrlwd and accommodation for day release classes at Aberystwyth.
Mr. G. Roberts: Could the Minister tell us anything about the reference made by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) to technical education in North Wales? She has got as far north as Aberystwyth and perhaps we could, entice her a little nearer to Caernarvon.
Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a little extra time to travel
1352
north, I will do it. I have no information, but I will try to get it and let him have it.
The other problem was the subject of awards. I have heard of the difficulty in cases where the awards differed in amount and standard, where people living in one area thought they were not getting as fair a share as those in other areas. We have considered this and have sent to the local authorities to tell them to wait before arranging their awards, and we are going to give them certain infomation to enable them to discuss it. At present discussions are going on with local authorities and universities to come to a conclusion on the maintenance standard. That will be the maintenance standard for our State scholarships.
If we can get the local representatives working on that, we can tell the local authorities what standard we are setting for the State scholarship. We are having a table made of the different numbers of awards and amounts of awards in all authorities, in relation to the population who might have the chance of getting those awards. That is almost a visual aid in deciding the amount of awards and the standard. Having given them that information, we are going to ask them to discuss the matter with us, because I do agree that people should think they are getting the same chance whether they are in one part of the country or another.
I know that transport is a difficulty in certain areas. Again, I have to await the estimates which will be received in April. I have said—and I still stand by it—that I have asked local authorities to look at the various things on which perhaps too much is being spent. But it is for them to look at the amount they are spending and to justify it, and I will certainly look at the position when I receive the estimates.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West, urged me to use my authority. I wonder whether he would like me to use my authority when he agrees with me but not when he disagrees with me. The other day, at Question time, I was asked to use my authority. A local authority wanted to shut down nursery schools. I was asked, "Will you do something about it?" I said, "Yes," and I told them they could not make indiscriminate cuts. Apparently that was excellent; I was using my authority, and I believe

1353
hon. Members thought I was right in using it. I am, therefore, looking for their support after April when I have to use my authority to do what I think is right in asking local authorities to look at the figures they have sent in. I have to say that either they are spending too much or too little.
I have heard what was said about books, and I will look into the matter, and I will also look into the question of clothing. One hon. Member spoke about a school for deaf children. In one case, at any rate, we are getting an addition to the programme with a school particularly for children suffering from deafness. I think I have answered nearly all the points raised and I turn now to the last, that of the Welsh language.
Mr. Bowen: May I ask the hon. Lady, before she deals with this point, whether she has any information to give us about the proposed residential schools in Carmarthen, Cardigan and Merioneth for sub-normal children?
Miss Horsbrugh: No. I will look into that and I will tell the hon. Gentleman about it. I had a list of other schools about which I thought I might be asked, but I do not think that was included. I will find out and will let the hon. Gentleman know
I think hon. Members know that no Minister of Education for England and Wales would do other than try to help forward the teaching of the Welsh language. The difficulties of schools in which the whole of the teaching is in the Welsh language have been pointed out. I should need some good arguments to convert me to believe that it was right to—
Mr. G. Roberts: Between 1945 and 1950 I pressed this matter rather hard with the then Minister of Education, the right hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson), and from being a voluntary matter, pressed by youth movements, particularly the Welsh League of Youth, it became an official part of the Minister's educational policy in Wales. If the Minister intends to question the value of these schools, she will be questioning a part of the educational policy in Wales
1354
which has become established and official. I thought I ought to intervene before she went too far on this point.
Mr. T. W. Jones: I invite the Minister as soon as possible to visit one of these schools. She has carried us all with her up to the moment and it is a pity, when we are on the point of adjourning, that she should drop our support so suddenly. May I have her promise this evening that in the very near future, during the Parliamentary Recess if possible, she will visit one of these schools? She will find it extremely interesting.
Rev. LI. Williams: As the hon. Member who first referred to these Welsh schools, may I say that I think the Minister will find that the record of the first Welsh school established in Wales, at Llanelly, is very good? In competition with other schools, in which instruction is given in the English language, for entrance into the grammar schools, the Welsh school has the finest record during the last few years.
Miss Horsbrugh: I know that. I am only putting in a plea, at the end of the debate, that the children should also be able to learn English, as a foreign language if hon. Members like to put it that way. I want to make it clear that I know about these schools and—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Miss Horsbrugh: I must push on. I know the necessity for more text-books in Welsh. I am not in the least opposed to this.
Perhaps it was a pity that at the end of the debate, closing on rather a lighter note, I should have disturbed hon. Members. I was about to say that I hope the people of Wales might also be allowed to learn the English language. [HON. MEMBERS: "They do!"] I have been serious the whole time, but just at the end I was introducing a lighter note. Plans have already been made for me to visit Wales. If I, as a Scot, can visit the people of Wales, we might make each other understand by speaking English.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes past Seven o'Clock.

MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Building Licences
  Building Licences
  Pre-Stressed Concrete
  Pre-Stressed Concrete
  Houses, Belgrave Square
  Houses, Belgrave Square
EMPLOYMENT
  West Ham
  West Ham
  Railways (Italian Labour)
  Railways (Italian Labour)
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS)
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  British Exports to U.S.S.R.
  British Exports to U.S.S.R.
  Development Areas (Factories)
  Development Areas (Factories)
  Cider and Perry (Imports)
  Cider and Perry (Imports)
  N.E. Trading Estates Co. Ltd.
  N.E. Trading Estates Co. Ltd.
MINISTRY OF PENSIONS
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Limbless Ex-Service Men
  Limbless Ex-Service Men
  Disability Pensions
  Disability Pensions
BRITISH ARMY
  Korea and Malaya (Gift Parcels Scheme)
  Korea and Malaya (Gift Parcels Scheme)
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Member's Letter (Reply)
  Member's Letter (Reply)
  Officer Cadet Schools (Vacancies)
  Officer Cadet Schools (Vacancies)
  National Service Men
  National Service Men
  Hospital, Shaftesbury (Fire Inquiry)
  Hospital, Shaftesbury (Fire Inquiry)
  Suez Canal Zone
  Suez Canal Zone
  Class Z Reservists (Railway Season Tickets)
  Class Z Reservists (Railway Season Tickets)
  R.A.F. (CHARGES TO CIVILIANS)
  R.A.F. (CHARGES TO CIVILIANS)
  CIVIL AVIATION STATIONS (SLEEPING ACCOMMODATION)
  CIVIL AVIATION STATIONS (SLEEPING ACCOMMODATION)
  PAPER (PRICE CONTROL)
  PAPER (PRICE CONTROL)
  ROYAL NAVY (VACCINATION REGULATIONS)
  ROYAL NAVY (VACCINATION REGULATIONS)
  CATTLE (TRANSPORT)
  CATTLE (TRANSPORT)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, CARDIFF
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, CARDIFF
  TELEVISION, NORTH-EAST ENGLAND
  TELEVISION, NORTH-EAST ENGLAND
  CIVIL DEFENCE, WEST RIDING (STRENGTH)
  CIVIL DEFENCE, WEST RIDING (STRENGTH)
HOUSING
  Land Acquisition (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
  Land Acquisition (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
  Subsidy
  Subsidy
  Under-Occupied Dwellings
  Under-Occupied Dwellings
  Mining Subsidence, Brandon Colliery, Durham
  Mining Subsidence, Brandon Colliery, Durham
  Policy
  Policy
  New Permanent Dwellings (Completion)
  New Permanent Dwellings (Completion)
  Ex-Service Personnel (Local Authority Lists)
  Ex-Service Personnel (Local Authority Lists)
  Electricity Supply, Witton Gilbert
  Electricity Supply, Witton Gilbert
  COAST PROTECTION WORKS, NORFOLK
  COAST PROTECTION WORKS, NORFOLK
  NATIONAL INSURANCE AND INDUSTRIAL INJURIES
  NATIONAL INSURANCE AND INDUSTRIAL INJURIES
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Councillors' Allowances
  Councillors' Allowances
  New Town Corporations (Members)
  New Town Corporations (Members)
  Development Charges
  Development Charges
  Police (Married Quarters, N.W.2)
  Police (Married Quarters, N.W.2)
  West Ham Borough Council (Special Grant)
  West Ham Borough Council (Special Grant)
SCOTLAND
  Educational Expenditure (Savings)
  Educational Expenditure (Savings)
  Housing Subsidy
  Housing Subsidy
  Industrial Development
  Industrial Development
  Herring Meal and Oil (Prices)
  Herring Meal and Oil (Prices)
  Roads
  Roads
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Strategic Reserve Stocks
  Strategic Reserve Stocks
  Inland Revenue (Wrongly Addressed Letters)
  Inland Revenue (Wrongly Addressed Letters)
  Auctioneers' and Valuers' Licence Duties
  Auctioneers' and Valuers' Licence Duties
  Planning Acts (Compensation Claims)
  Planning Acts (Compensation Claims)

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

MINING INDUSTRY WORKERS
2.37 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the largest number of workers ever employed in the mining industry; how that figure compares with the total now, and what number could be employed to bring the output up to full capacity.]
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the highest number of workers in the mining industry was 1,200,000 in 1920; the present number is 708,000. It was estimated at the end of 1951 that an additional 15,000 men could rapidly be absorbed in the coalfields where there were vacancies.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his answer, but I am afraid that I did not quite catch the last sentence clearly. I should like to know by what number it would be necessary to augment the present number of workers in order to bring the industry up to full capacity.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am afraid that the information which I have does not answer that question fully. The number which could be absorbed immediately is 15,000 men. If the noble Lord wishes to know the number which would eventually be required, I think I shall have to ask for another question to be put, because the term "full capacity" is somewhat elastic.
LORD TEVIOT: I thank the noble Earl for his reply.

SUEZ CANAL TRAFFIC
2.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that the Royal Navy has been responsible for the working of Suez Canal traffic for many weeks, all British ships are passing through the Canal unhindered when upon their lawful occasions, and, if not, why not.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, it is the Suez Canal Company, and not the Royal Navy, which has throughout been responsible for the working of Canal traffic. The Royal Navy, however, has rendered very valuable assistance in mooring and unmooring ships awaiting their turn to pass through the Canal without which it would have been impracticable for the Company to deal efficiently with the normal volume of traffic. All British ships seeking to pass through the Canal have been able to do so.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his answer. I should like to ask whether what he has said means that British tankers, even if they presented themselves to go through the Canal, would be refused.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, what I said was that those ships which had sought passage had, in every case, been given it. No tanker bound for Haifa has, in fact, sought passage during these last months. If the noble and gallant Earl would like me just to add to that, I would say this: the oil companies concerned have been consulted by Her Majesty's Government and they have decided that, at the present moment, it is not desirable that the Government should take any action. Her Majesty's Government agree with that view and, in the circumstances, no special steps are being taken at present
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, if I may, I would make a further remark on that answer. If I did not have the high respect for the noble Marquess which in fact I have, should say that his reply was a quibble. The companies have had pressure brought to bear on them so that they are not asking for their tankers to go through. Is it not a Gilbertian situation? Whatever may be said, the Navy has actually done and is doing the work. In the Navy they pray every day—or they used to do—for security for such as pass upon the seas "on their lawful occasions." Here we have a Canal which is an international highway. We have great forces deployed in the area and by international agreement the highway is not subject to blockade in peace or war. Yet, with the British Navy, as I say, doing all the work, British ships are discriminated against and are not allowed to present themselves to pass through.
THE MQARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble and gallant Earl thought that my answer was a quibble. I thought the answer was not an imprecise one to the Question on the Order Paper. What exactly were the questions latent in the noble and gallant Earl's last remarks, I am not at the moment entirely clear, I do not know the source of his information when he says that pressure has been brought upon the oil companies riot to seek passage for their tankers through the Canal, but that information is not mine.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY:
I thank the noble Marquess.

NATIONAL SAVINGS CAMPAIGN
2.44 p.m.
EARL MANVERS: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government: (1) Whether a strenuous campaign known as the "Lend Strength to Britain" movement is now on foot, with a view to increasing the funds at the Government's disposal, and perhaps reducing Budget demands; and (2) Why the amount to be held by any one depositor should be limited to £3,000, to the grave discouragement of many savings movement workers.]
2.44 p.m.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, I confirm that a strenuous savings campaign is now proceeding and I should like to thank all the workers in the National Savings Movement who are contributing to its success. Whilst increased savings can help to reduce Budget demands, the primary means by which they do so is not by increasing the funds at the Government's disposal, but by counteracting inflation through the reduction of demands on the home market. The real need, therefore, is for genuine new savings and I do not think that the limit of £3,000 on deposits in the Savings Banks, to which I assume the noble Earl refers, can be regarded as unduly restrictive. National Savings investments are designed to attract new savings from the small saver, and in view of the advantageous terms they offer some limit must he applied to total holdings; this particular limit has only recently been increased from £2,000 to £,000 and a person who avails himself of all the National Savings facilities will now be able to invest about £10,000.
EARL MANVERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his courteous response.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (No. 1) BILL
2.46 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I move this Second Reading on behalf of my noble friend Lork Birkenhead? It is a short, simple and non-controversial Bill which seeks to do two fairly simple things. First, it increases from £200 to £500 the limit on the shareholding of a member in a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Scheme. Secondly, the amount on deposit which such a society can hold without being treated as carrying on banking business is increased from £20 to £50, and the amount which can be deposited at any one, time is increased from ten shillings to £2. These societies have a very large membership indeed; in fact their membership collectively is somewhere around 12,000,000. There are some 6,000 societies, which include.

579
the many retail co-operative societies, wholesale co-operative societies, manufacturing co-operative societies, agricultural trading societies, agricultural farming societies, housing societies and a certain number of clubs, many of which are run by the British Legion, with a variety of activities ranging from insurance to fishing. It is not thought that a great many members will want to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill, but it is understood that a certain number of agricultural societies would be glad to have the opportunity to obtain additional funds, and in certain cases in the retail organisations where the "divi's" have been left to accumulate and have reached the £200 level it is inconvenient for the members to make alternative arrangements.
The reason for this Bill is really the fall in the value of money. The limit of shareholding of £200 was set in 1893, and accordingly the figure of £500 is, we think, a much more real figure to-day and one which still maintains what might be described as the principle of cooperation. I should perhaps mention that there is also provision in the Bill to enable societies whose rules do not permit a larger shareholding than the present statutory limit by a simple procedure to alter those rules. That is a matter of convenience to the societies and also to the Registrar. The Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, where the matter will be dealt with by the local Legislature. It is perhaps appropriate for me to add that this year is the centenary of the year in which the co-operative movement first received statutory recognition. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
2.48 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I think we are all indebted to the noble Earl for the explicit and brief way in which he has explained the provisions of this useful little measure. In accordance with the ordinary practice of the House, I am afraid I must, in this case, declare an interest, the interest being that I have been an ordinary member of a cooperative society all my adult life, as my parents were before me. This little Bill has gone through the other place almost
580
unobserved. It is a useful measure and I think your Lordships' House is entitled to some credit for it. I believe in honour where honour is due, and it was a member of your Lordships' House who, in my opinion, took the first practical step towards bringing this Bill here to-day. I refer to His Grace the Duke of Montrose, who placed on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House a Question asking that the provisions of this Bill should be applied to agricultural co-operative societies. As a result, I believe the Government decided to do the whole thing properly and to bring in a measure to treat all co-operative societies alike. I think that that was a very wise decision. I believe the Bill will give much satisfaction to all concerned. It will remedy a long-standing grievance, not only of agricultural co-operative societies but of ordinary co-operative societies.
I am sure that every officer and committee member of a co-operative society will be doubly grateful for one provision in particular to which the noble Earl referred and which is contained in Clause 1 (2). This, as the noble Earl indicated, will permit a co-operative society to put into force the provisions of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, by a simple resolution of the management committee, instead of employing the long, laborious and expensive method of each society calling a special meeting for the purpose of amending the rules. In my opinion, it will also prevent the Registrar-General's office from being overwhelmed with resolutions, which might run into thousands—as the noble Lord has said, there are 6,000 co-operative societies—applying for the rules to be amended. I do not know who has thought of this simple and practical idea, although I am informed that the Registrar-General and his officers have been most helpful in the negotiations. I do not know whether this bright idea came from the Department, or whether a member of the Government had a brain-wave; but I do know that this provision to by-pass the cumbersome method by which each society has to seek an amendment of rules before new provisions can be put into force is most valuable. Nothing more remains for me to say except to thank the Government again. I hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage and be on the Statute Book before spring is here.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I am sure that he appreciates that the virtues of this Government will become increasingly apparent as time goes On.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES (COM MONWEALTH COUNTRIES AND REPUBLIC OF IRELAND) BILL.
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (LORD ISMAY): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I propose to confine myself to an explanation of its salient features and to avoid questions of detail. In view of the amount of Business on the Older Paper, I am sure that that would be the wish of your. Lordships. The purpose of the Bill is to confer on the Commonwealth High Commissioners, and the Ambassador of the Irish Republic, as well as on their official and domestic staffs, and on the families of the High Commissioners, the Ambassador of the Irish Republic, and their official staffs, an immunity from suit and legal process and inviolability of premises and archives, similar to that which, under International Law, is enjoyed by foreign Ambassadors, their staffs and families. This immunity extends not only to the official acts of the person concerned but also to his personal acts.
As your Lordships know, there has been a progressive movement for some years towards putting High Commissioners and Ambassadors on the same footing. They have, for example, been granted the same exemption from taxation and from payment of customs duties as are enjoyed by Ambassadors. Four years ago His Majesty the King graciously approved that they should have the same precedence as Ambassadors. I am sure there will be general agreement that the time has come—if, indeed, it is not overdue—when they should enjoy the same diplomatic immunity. I ought here to mention the position as regards those representatives of the Commonwealth countries serving in this country who are
582
performing functions corresponding to those performed by foreign consuls. These representatives are not, strictly speaking, members of the staff of the High Commissioners, but the Bill, by Clause 1 (2), enables Her Majesty by Order in Council to confer on these persons, and on members of their staff who are performing consular functions, the same immunity as is possessed by foreign consuls.
The countries whose representatives are to be entitled to immunity are set out in Clause 1 (6)—namely, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Southern Rhodesia and the Republic of Irelands As regards the lass-named, I should explain that the Ireland Act, 1949, provided that the Irish Republic is not a foreign country for the purpose either of existing law or of future law. There would therefore be considerable doubt, to say the least of it, if the question arose in practical form as to whether the Ambassador of the Irish Republic was entitled to the immunity of a foreign Ambassador. This Bill will settle conclusively any such doubt.
There is one more general point. It is, of course, fundamental to the whole conception that the immunity which this Bill provides should be granted only to the representatives of those countries which are prepared to give reciprocal treatment to our representatives in theirs. Accordingly, it is specifically laid down in Clause 2 (2) that immunity may be withheld entirely, or reduced, in the case of any country which fails to reciprocate either in whole or in part. I very much doubt whether this safeguard will ever have to be used, since all the countries concerned have signified their intention of passing the legislation necessary to enable them to accord full reciprocity. One of them, the Union of South Africa, has, in fact, already passed such legislation.
To conclude, I feel sure that noble Lords on both sides of the House will welcome the opportunity to accord to the representatives of members of our Commonwealth family that equality of treatment with foreign countries which this Bill provides. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ismay.)
2.58 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome this Bill and we agree with the noble Lord as to what we believe it will accomplish. There are, however, certain questions that I should like to ask the noble Lord, and a few matters on which we desire to receive assurance. As he has said, this Bill is one which will receive considerable support in the Commonwealth—in fact, to my knowledge, the countries of the Commonwealth desire it as much as we do. They have at times felt it anomalous that the representative in their country of Her Majesty's Government should not have the same rights and immunities as have the representatives of some small and rather obscure State with which they have very few contacts. It is, as the noble Lord has intimated, a symbol of a developing Commonwealth; and in this Bill the British Nationality Act of 1948 is used as machinery. In spite of the many criticisms made of it, the British Nationality Act was a logical step in the development of the Commonwealth, and this Bill represents a further step in that direction. It is. indeed, an interesting conception that the Sovereign is not only head of the Commonwealth but is also head of every one of the individual States of the Commonwealth, save one.
I am glad that the anomaly with reference to Ireland is being cleared up, although, in fact, while this Bill clears away one anomaly in a way it creates another. As the noble Lord said, by reason of the Ireland Act, 1949, Ireland is not a foreign country. Yet it is not a country within the Commonwealth. So, in order to put the Ambassador in the same position as an Ambassador, he has to be treated as a High Commissioner. I feel that this is the right and proper tradition of all Irish matters—and it will be a sad day for the world when there is no Irish paradox in it. Still, after the match last Saturday, I feel very kindly disposed towards Ireland. I am not going to make any comment upon it, but will simply say, "Long may Ireland flourish!"—the only country in the world where a paradox is normal and the normal practice.
I should like to ask the noble Lord a few questions. The first is whether immunity from "suit and legal process," as mentioned in the Bill, covers immunity
584
from criminal as well as civil process, and whether it covers bankruptcy and divorce. If it does, it may be assumed that not only divorces in this country but also bigamies would be held to be covered by the Bill and that there would be no normal right against a person who had committed any criminal act or who was concerned in a divorce suit. The people of this country are entitled to know whether such a wide privilege is, in fact, to be bestowed by this Bill, or whether "suit and legal process" can be considered on a narrower connotation than would seem to be the case if the words are given their normal reading. The second question that I should like to ask is whether the Colonies receive reciprocal treatment so far as new Commonwealth countries are concerned. I will give your Lordships an example. Under this Bill, as I understand it, the Indian representative or agent in Singapore, or the Australian in Kuala Lumpur, would receive the privileges conferred by this Bill. Does the Malayan representative—if there is one, or should there be one in the future—receive similar treatment in Canberra or New Delhi? That is a point upon which we, as trustees for the Colonies, ought to have some information.
The third question I should like to ask concerns the position of servants. Under this Bill the recommendations of the Committee on Diplomatic Immunities—or, at all events the recommendation relating to servants—is carried out. The recommendation of the Committee, at paragraph 13 (1) is
"That the Foreign Secretary should in future refuse to accept any local national as holding any position in a foreign embassy in this country, including the position of a ' domestic servant,' except on the condition that such person shall not enjoy a personal diplomatic immunity."
Under this Bill, in the proviso to Clause 1 (1) the Government seem to have carried out that recommendation with regard to the servants of High Commissioners. That proviso says:
"Provided that a person who is a member of the official or domestic staff of the chief representative of any country. and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and is not a citizen of that country, shall not be entitled under this subsection to immunity from suit and legal process, except in respect of things done or omitted to be done in the course of the performance of his duties, and the members of his family shall not, as such, be entitled to any immunity from suit and legal process."

585
Of course, we welcome that proviso, but it does lead us to inquire from the Government whether a similar proviso or a similar clause will be included in a Bill concerned with servants of Ambassadors.
The servants of High Commissioners are put into a different position from that of the servants of Ambassadors; so in this respect the High Commissioners are not getting all the privileges that Ambassadors are getting. I do not suggest that they should, because I think the Ambassadors should be put into the position of High Commissioners so far as their servants are concerned. It is a matter of great importance, because from 1945 to date the number of Ambassadors' servants in this country has risen from 537 to 861, and they are all people who can claim immunity from suit. That seems an extraordinary number, especially as some of them may be citizens of this country who, as a result of their employment, enjoy a privileged position compared with that of their fellow citizens who have not this immunity. In other words, if the noble Lord's chauffeur commits some offence or borrows money he can be sued; but if that chauffeur's brother works for art Ambassador he cannot be sued, and if he commits an offence, unless the immunity is waived he will not be liable to be tried for it. That is a matter upon which. I think we should have some understanding from the Minister. He should tell us that he will at least look into this question, because it is one which we think should be dealt with by the Government at an early date.
Finally, there is the difference between the orders. Of course, there is a perennial dispute between Ministers, who always want orders made under the negative procedure, and Parliament, who always want them made under the affirmative procedure. In this Bill, however, under Clauses 1 and 2 there are two types of orders. Under Clause 1, the order is a negative order, and under Clause 2, it is an affirmative order. We do not quite see the reason for this distinction. In fact, so far as the affirmative order is concerned, it would rarely arise and would never be challenged. It is the order which defines a new Commonwealth country, and I cannot imagine that anyone in Parliament is likely to object to the admission of a new Commonwealth country to the rights under the Bill. The normal orders which would be made under the Bill are
586
negative orders. There may be a considerable number of them, and at times they may be the subject of controversy. It seems odd, therefore, that the orders which are not likely to give rise to any controversy should be the affirmative ones, and the orders upon which controversy is likely to be raised are the negative ones—at least, would be odd if we did not realise that Ministers always try to have negative rather than affirmative orders. I ask the noble Lord to look into this point—he may not be able to answer to-day—and, if possible, to preserve the rights of Parliament in regard to all orders, making them all affirmative instead of the main body of them negative. With those few remarks, I welcome the Bill and hope for answers to my questions.
3.8 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I should like to make a few observations on this Bill. This is a matter which caused me a great deal of trouble during the last Government. There is no doubt thin. extension of diplomatic immunity is now being asked for on a very large scale, and, to my mind, it is a tendency which we ought to watch most carefully. It is easy to refer to this as the Diplomatic Immunities Bill, but one could also refer to it as the Citizens Deprivation of Rights Bill—because that is what it is. If you grant an immunity to "A," and if "A" runs over some unhappy person in his car, that person has no rights at all. As many of your Lordships who were constantly present at our debates may remember, I used to receive protests from all quarters of the House about the vast extension which was taking place in diplomatic immunity. My noble friend Lord Henderson used to come round and ask for immunity in this, that or the other case, and if he did not come, Mr. Ernest Bevin did. I found myself placed in a position of considerable difficulty and I can now afford to say what I think about this matter. I consider that we ought to be exceedingly slow in extending diplomatic immunity, and we ought to do the best we can to cut down some of the existing immunities.
I have said that I entirely agree with this Bill. It is quite ridiculous that we should give immunity to some representative of a small foreign State and not give it to the representatives of the great Dominions here mentioned. Therefore, I

587
am not in the least opposed to the Bill, beyond telling your Lordships that I think immunity is a dangerous principle. In the old days, as the Minister will know, it became an absolute scandal. British subjects used to get themselves engaged as representatives of some foreign Government, thereby obtaining complete immunity, including immunity from taxation. Consequently, to become employed as a second secretary, or something of that sort, at a foreign Embassy, became a very profitable course of action. That was ultimately stopped, and we do not now recognise those people as accredited to us. In the proviso to Clause 1, the Bill says:
"Provided that a person who is a member of the official or domestic staff of the chief representative of any country, and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and is not a citizen of that country, shall not be entitled under this subsection to immunity from suit and legal process, except in respect of things done or omitted to be done in the course of the performance of his duties.…"
That means, as I understand it, that a British subject who is a member of the staff of the chief representative, say, for Ireland, could not seek immunity for going out to a party and driving his car in such a way that he knocks somebody down, since that would not be part of his official duties.
But why are the words:
"…and is not a citizen of that country.…"
included? Is it not enough to say that the man is a citizen of this country? Surely that would be sufficient. But the Bill says:
"and is not a citizen of that country.…"
I should like the noble and gallant Lord to consider whether there are any good reasons for the inclusion of those words. If there are, the Minister will no doubt tell us why, and he will no doubt tell us also why he attaches importance to them. That is all I have to say on this Bill. I do not dissent from it. It is a logical step forward. The trouble is that all these steps forward are said to be logical and necessary, and we are stepping forward so quickly that it is becoming appalling. We must be careful—all of us, on both sides of the House—to see whether, in expanding this immunity, we are not depriving the liege of his rights. We are all proud to be living under the
588
rule of law. As I say, I make no objection to the Bill, but I should like to know why the Minister has inserted in it both these tests, the positive and the negative.
3.13 p.m.
LORD ISMAY: My Lords, may I deal first with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, whether "suit and legal process" covers criminal as well as civil process? The answer is that both are included in the case of diplomats and will therefore be included also in the case of Commonwealth representatives. I do not know whether the noble Lord had examined Clause 1 (5) of the Bill which deals with the question of waiver. If so, it may have eased his mind. Diplomatic immunity is granted not for the benefit of the individual concerned but for the benefit of the State in whose service he is, and the person will be subject to the law of the land, civil or criminal. It is the practice at the Foreign Office, where a person who has diplomatic immunity is alleged to have committed a criminal offence, to ask for a waiver of immunity, and that is preserved in Clause 1 (5) of the Bill.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I understood that. I had previously known the practice of waiver. That was not what I wanted. But the noble Lord has given me the answer I wanted.
LORD ISMAY: The second question the noble Lord asked was whether Commonwealth representatives in the Colonies received immunity.
LORD OGMORE: The other way round.
LORD ISMAY: Very well. Neither do at present. A Commonwealth representative in Malaya does not at the moment receive immunity, but it is hoped that in due course appropriate immunities will be given, subject to reciprocity by the Commonwealth Government. I hope that that is satisfactory to the noble Lord.
LORD OGMORE: It happens to be different from what was said in another place, but I assume that this is the final answer of the Government. I understood from the Minister's statement in another place that Commonwealth Governments would have these privileges in a Colony. What I am asking is whether, in the light of the development of our Colonies,

589
persons in an important position would have similar privileges in the Commonwealth.
LORD ISMAY: My present advice is that no immunity is given to Commonwealth representatives in the Colonies, but that legislation to that effect will be considered.
The third question the noble Earl raised was in regard to diplomatic immunity for domestic servants. All I can say on that point is that I will have the matter looked into and brought to the notice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The fourth question concerned a suggestion that all orders should be subject to an affirmative Resolution, and not an affirmative Resolution in one case and a negative one in another. I think the noble and learned Earl will agree that that is a matter of opinion, but I will have the point looked into. The noble and learned Earl thought we were going a little fast in this matter of diplomatic immunity. I gather that there was much agreement with that view, and his remarks will be very carefully considered and paid heed to. I am not in a position to give an answer at the moment to the legal question which the noble and learned Earl raised, but I will have it looked into as soon as possible. The noble and learned Earl also raised the question of dual nationality.
EARL JOWITT: I only wanted to have the matter considered. I think it ought to be looked into.
LORD ISMAYI will certainly have that done.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
3.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Leathers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Power of Minister of Transport to exempt from, requirements as to crew accommodation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
EARL JOWITT: I desire to raise a point on Clause 1. I start by saying that I think this is a good Bill. I understand that it has been agreed by all the representatives of the owners, the men and the officers. The noble Lord has had his negotiations and everybody is agreed. Secondly, I say that, having known for a long time that the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, was in charge of the Bill. I feel that, if we are to have this sort of discretion, there is nobody in whose hands I would rather have it than the noble Lord. I hope that, so far, I have made my position plain. I now want to point out to your Lordships that this is really a very far-reaching measure. In fact, I cannot recall a case quite like this. This is the old dispensing power, and nothing but the dispensing power, writ large. In the old days the controversy was that the Monarch was allowed to dispense, if he so desired, with the provisions of an Act of Parliament. Finally that power was destroyed.
What we are no's doing—and I think we should all recognise this—is to give the Minister dispensing power. You have here certain requirements for ships, and a convention. I understand that, on the strength of this Bill, we either have signed or intend to sign this convention. So what we find is that it is now proposed to insert in the Act of 11948 a new subsection stating that:
"The Minister may exempt any ships or classes of ships.…"
Quite frankly, that is the dispensing power. It is the sort of power which, in very different hands from those of the present Minister, might lend itself to grave abuse. It gives the Minister power

591
in a particular case of a particular ship, without necessarily assigning any reasons, to say: "Well, the regulations which apply to all your brother shipowners and to all ships of this class shall not apply to you." I think I am right in saying that.
I believe that to be, from the public point of view, a most undesirable state of affairs. Quite frankly, as I said, I do not think it would matter if we could be sure that the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, would always occupy his present position. I think it is a dangerous thing to say that a Minister of the Crown may in a particular case, without assigning any reason, dispense with requirements which apply to everybody else. I should have hoped that there might be some safeguard about this power. That is the general question of principle which I desire to put forward. I cannot resist pointing out that I was accused, not so long ago, of bringing all sorts of irregular things into the law. I never did anything so bad as that. If I had proposed that a Minister of the Crown, if he thought fit, might, without assigning any reason, without going before any body, dispense with statutory requirements in the case of one man whilst adhering to those statutory requirements in all other like cases. I am certain that I should never have heard the last of it.
Therefore, although I should be quite happy about the noble Lord doing this (for I am certain that, if he does dispense with certain requirements, it will be for very good reasons) I must register my protest. I think this is a bad principle. If this principle once became extended, it might lead to corruption in our public life. There is no question of that sort here but there is that underlying danger, and that is the reason why this sort of thing is undesirable. There is nothing that can be done about the matter now. The Bill is obviously a good Bill and must be carried through. But I desire to say that I think this principle is an undesirable one, and I hope that in future it will not be extended.
LORD LEATHERS: I am much impressed by the trust which the noble and learned Earl places in me in this matter, but in introducing this Bill I made it quite clear that the variation, the exemption, would be given in only a very few cases, and then only after consultation
592
with the whole of the industry—that is, the owners, the officers and the men, all being in full agreement. Perhaps that is some measure of safeguard that will relieve the anxiety felt by the noble and learned Earl.
EARL JOWITT: Yes, but in the old days noble Lords opposite would have said: "Put it in the Bill" That is what I always used to hear. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, used to make himself hoarse sometimes telling me to "Put it in the Bill" I do not distrust the noble Lord or his discretion, but this is not in the Bill. Goodness knows what his successors in years to come may do!
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment.

CINEMATOGRAPH BILL [H.L.]
3.26 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

JUDICIAL OFFICES (SALARIES, &c.) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

THE CORONATION STONE
3.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the advisability of arranging for the Coronation Stone to be delivered—after the Coronation of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II—under escort and with fitting ceremony, to the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, to be handed over by him to the Dean of the Thistle and Chapel Royal of Scotland for custody in St. Giles' Church in Scotland's capital; the Stone to be delivered, on the occasion of a future Coronation—again with fitting ceremony—to the Dean of Westminster, to be returned by him to the Dean of the Thistle after fulfilling its royal purpose in Westminster Abbey. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in ordinary circumstances I should ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper

593
and hope for a favourable reply from Her Majesty's Government, but as I understand that a debate will arise after I have asked the Question, it seems to me to be eminently necessary that I should first state my reasons for putting down the Question in the form that I have and establish the case for the request which I make in the Question to Her Majesty's Government. I was asked, when coming to your Lordships' House this afternoon, "Why your sudden interest in the Coronation Stone?" "Sudden interest?", I replied. "Why, in the year 1296 my direct ancestor was one of the signatories to the Ragman Roll and, as one of the signatories was `double-crossed' by Edward I a fact to which I drew attention in a book which I published twenty years ago"
May I now come to the present day? In May last year, not then being a member of your Lordships,' House, I mooted the suggestion which is contained in my Question in a letter to The Times. An hiatus then took place, and I did not proceed with the matter owing to the illness of His late Majesty, our great and beloved King. But when His late Majesty recovered early this year, I put this Question down upon the Order Paper, where it has been since January 31. I may say, in parenthesis, that I put it down to be answered to-day in order to give the Government Adequate and ample time to consider their reply, and it is not my fault that, as it happens, matters of great importance are taking place in another place coincident with my asking this Question.
My Lords, I desire to pass as rapidly as I can over the substance of my case for putting this Question on the Order Paper. The first thing I ought, to deal with, in order that it may be on record in your Lordships' House, is the origin of the Coronation Stone. Various authorities have written on that subject, one of the most eminent being the late Dr. W. F. Skene, the Historiographer Royal of Scotland, who came to the conclusion (for which he produced a mass of evidence) that some of the legends connected with the Stone had no foundation in fact. He said there was no foundation for the legend that the Stone was Jacob's pillow, but that there was foundation for the story that it was the pillow of St. Columba in Iona in the sixth century. He said that there was no reason that he could see for supposing that it was the
594
lia fail of Tara. He came to the conclusion that for ceremonial purposes it had never been in any other place than at the Scone Abbey in Perthshire.
I have had a very interesting letter on this subject which, if I may, I propose to read to your Lore ships, in order that it may be on record, It is from a gentleman whom some of your Lordships will know, General Sir Philip Christison, a distinguished soldier, upon some of whose plans the Japanese were driven out of Burma. He is a noted Gaelic scholar and a well-known authority on Celtic folk-lore and legend. This is what he writes—and I suggest that it is a very interesting contribution on this subject:
"As regards the origin of the Coronation Stone, I ask myself this question: Why should Kings be proclaimed ever a piece of stone? Surely, the custom arose in pre-Christian and Druidical times. If so, the legend of the Stone being first at Dunadd where the early Scotic Kings were proclaimed in Argyll (Dalriada) is surely not far-fetched. The more I study folk-lore and legend, the more I believe that, in an age of illiteracy, tradition was handed down by trained men, bards and seannachies—bards among the Scottish Highlanders who recited the traditions of a clan—and these were professional historians who were not likely to be wrong over so important an article as the Stone.
"I personally believe that the Stone came from Ireland to Dalriada with the early Scotic settlers, and was moved to Scone shortly after the union with the Picts. It is a perfectly logical, and indeed likely, happening, as the early Scotic invaders were worshippers of wood and stone. That they held this particular Stone in high veneration probably points to an even remoter post of fame; but that takes us back to early Milesian history."
I think that that is a very interesting contribution to the discussion which has proceeded around the origin of the Coronation Stone.
The next point I desire to discuss is a very important point indeed—namely, the ownership of the Coronation Stone. Here I will cite my Authority, in this case a distinguished Scottish. writer on subjects of this kind—Dr, Mary Ramsay. She speaks of Lord Hailes, who was Sir David Dalrymple. He was a distinguished Scottish judge, who was promoted to the Court of Session and wrote the most learned treatise on all subjects connected with early Scottish history. In the view of Lord Hades, the Coronation Stone was a national treasure the ownership of which was vested in the Scottish people and not in the Scottish Crown. That is a point which I wish to emphasise and stress.
The Scottish kingship in early days was essentially democratic and the ceremony of coronation was secular and civil. It was essentially democratic in that the right of succession was by the due and loyal consent of all the people, different from the ordinary English coronation. The point I want to make here is that if, as Lord Hailes held, the Coronation Stone was the property of the Scottish people, and not of the Scottish Crown, in those early days before it was looted by Edward I and taken to Westminster, nothing has happened since—neither the Union of the Crowns in 1603, the Union of the Parliaments in 1707, nor anything else—to cause the Coronation Stone to become the property of the Crown. As to the authority of Lord Hailes, one would have to sit up for many nights with many wet towels round one's head—and the price of towels will probably be increased by something which is happening in another place to-day—before being able to demolish the argument which has been advanced by this eminent Scottish authority.
To cover my case—and I will do so as quickly as possible—I wish to come to the circumstances in which the Coronation Stone was looted (I used that word "looted" just now, and I use it again) by Edward I, and brought to England. This part of the story is material to my whole case. In the year 1286, there was a failure of the issue of Alexander III of Scotland. Many claimants to the Scottish Throne appeared, but the claimants were unable to settle the problem amongst themselves, and there were, naturally, at the time no body or bodies in Scotland able to decide between the rival claims. So an approach was made to Edward I of England, and a request was made to him to settle the claims between the various Scottish disputants. Finally, he agreed to do so, but only on one condition—that the claimants should acknowledge him as their overlord.
It was in those circumstances that the Ragman Roll, to which I have just referred, was signed in 1296, when some 2,000 Scottish lairds, ecclesiastics and others, of whom my ancestor was one, signed the Roll and acknowledged the overlordship. The moment the Roll was signed, Edward threw off his guise of a disinterested person seeking merely to
596
adjudge the claims of various claimants to the Scottish Throne, and he appeared in his true colours as an English King determined to subjugate Scotland and to annex that country to the English Crown as a province of England. Of course, the result was inevitable. The Scots at once made an alliance with France, and threw off the English yoke. A series of Scotto-Anglo wars ensued, in which first one side and then the other had the better. The Scots fought under William Wallace and Robert the Bruce, and, as I say, for a time first one side and then the other were the victors. Those wars ended in the defeat of the Army of Edward II—who by that time had succeeded to the Throne—at Bannockburn on June 24, 1314, which put an end to the English attempts to dominate the fair land of Scotland.
Subsequent to the battle of Bannockburn, the two sides came together in order to endeavour to formulate a Peace Treaty, and the dates which I wish to establish now are important to my whole case. Negotiations—which, of course, took a considerable period of time—were entered into, and in March, 1328, conventions were held in Edinburgh at which delegates representing the Scottish Crown and the English Crown were present. An agreement was drawn up which was transformed into a treaty, and that treaty was ratified at Northampton in May, 1328. It is true—and this is one of the arguments which is being advanced in the contrary sense—that no specific mention was made in the Treaty of Northampton, in 1328, of the return of the Stone to Scotland. But, seeing that other symbols of the Scottish Royal dignity were due to be returned under the Treaty, and that under the Treaty the complete independence of Scotland was acknowledged, it seems to me quite impossible to imagine that there was no mention of the Stone at the conventions which took place in Edinburgh in March, 1328. It is impossible to imagine that on both sides of the Border it was not understood by the Crowns and the entourages of both sides that the Coronation Stone would be returned. To my mind, that is borne out by the terms of the writ which Edward III issued to the Abbot of Westminster in the month of July, 1328. In

597
that writ it was stated that his council, King Edward's council, had
"in his Parliament held at Northampton agreed that the Stone whereupon the Kings of Scotland used to sit at the time of their Coronation…should be returned to Scotland."
In my view—and I shall be interested if it is contested—it is quite clear that by the words of the writ Edward III conceded that the Stone was Scottish property and ought to be returned to Scotland. We know that the reason why it was not returned to Scotland then was that there happened to be an obstreperous Abbot of Westminster who refused to hand it over. A writ was issued and the Sheriffs of London were empowered to take the Stone under the terms of the writ from the Abbot and hand it over to Queen Isabella, who was about to depart for Berwick in connection with the marriage of her daughter. There was no doubt that it was thought at the time that the Queen's escort would provide a guard for the Stone on its way north and, secondly, that the Queen's arrival with the Stone would help to propitiate the Scots in certain very difficult negotiations which were about to take place.
That was not, so far as the Scots were concerned, the last of the attempts to get the Stone back to Scotland. Some thirty years later David II returned to the charge when drawing up a treaty in the year 1363 with Edward III, and it was made a condition under that treaty that if Edward III entered upon the heritable succession to the Throne of Scotland the Stone should be returned. He never entered upon that succession, and the Stone remained at Westminster until the end of the year 1950. My Lords, I have endeavoured to establish, first, that the Stone was the property of the Scottish people; secondly (a fact which needed no establishment), that it was looted treacherously by Edward I about the year 1296; and, thirdly, that Edward III, knowing it to be Scottish property, knowing it to be one of the foremost symbols of the royal dignity of Scotland, did his very best to return it, but was foiled by the Abbot of Westminster. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the Sheriffs of London probably did not do very much to help the Abbot to hand it over; they probably had the same opinion of the northern barbarians as had the Abbot.
Now we come right down to the present, and I have not very much more to say. On this question of the return of the Stone, and a favourable reply by the Government to the request which I am making to them, of course the question of public opinion enters, and must enter, into the discussion. I have read very carefully what has been said in another place, and at Press conferences and in discussions between this person and that. I may say en passant, since I have been—I will not say accused, but at any rate told that I was taking a very sudden interest in this question, that not only have I ancestral connections but I have written about the Stone in a book, a copy of which is in the library of the noble Earl, Lord Home—I do not suppose that he has ever read it, but I gave it: to his well-beloved and popular father at the time I wrote it. If there has been any appearance of suddenness about my interest, it was due to the suddenness with which on February 26 the Prime Minister came down to the House and announced that the Stone at the time of Evensong on the previous day had been taken up from the vaults and placed within the grille which surrounds the Henry VII tomb. I want to say only one thing on that matter. First, of course, the Prime Minister's statement led at once to questions. My right honourable friend Mr. Walter Elliot (who, as it appeared to me, had an "impromptu" supplementary question in his pocket) said that the statement would give great pleasure to the people of Scotland. I hope that I shall be in order in referring to what Colonel Gomme-Duncan said—at any rate, I quote from the Scotsman of the following day. The Scotsman, one of our leading Scottish newspapers, said:
"Colonel Gomme-Duncan was unquestionably right in declaring, after the Prime Minister's announcement, that, 'among a very considerable body of Her Majesty's most loyal Scottish subjects there will be profound disappointment at the decision'."
I mooted this question of mine in The Times nearly a year ago, and since that date, and particularly since I put this Question on the Older Paper of your Lordships' House on January 31, I have received messages from Scots of every walk of life, of every state of society, of every sort and kind in Scotland. I have just had a telegram from Scots in the United States, and I have had letters

599
from Canada and Australia. I know—because, after all, I do not sit still; I travel all over Scotland—what they are saying in Scotland; I know that if you go out into the highways and byeways you can tell what they are feeling. That surely must be taken into account. I see that the Secretary of State for Scotland made a very interesting remark. I do not want to be controversial and I hope that I am not making a controversial speech, but the Secretary of State did say (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 496, Col. 947):
"I would think, speaking for myself, that the return of the Stone to the Abbey was in accordance with the wishes of the Scottish people."
He is perfectly entitled to think so, and I leave it at that. But I take exception to one thing which was said by the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister. In the statement which he made on February 26, he said,
"With the approval of Her Majesty's Government the Stone has been restored to its traditional place."
To use the word "traditional" in a case of this sort would surely seem to indicate that the matter goes back almost to time immemorial, or at least to a time when the origin of the subject under discussion—in this case the Coronation Stone—is lost in the dim ages of antiquity. That is not the case with the Coronation Stone: it was well known in Scotland years before it was removed to Westminster. Whilst I will not say that I take strong exception to the use of the word, I will at least say that the word "traditional," as applied to Westminster Abbey in connection with the Coronation Stone, is not a word which has any meaning—certainly not to me, nor, I think, to most folk in Scotland.
My Lords, I do not want to say any more except that it might be said "What about England?" I am not a judge of what England as a whole thinks, but I do know that I have a number of English friends who support the very reasonable (as most of them say) suggestion that I have put down in this Question to-day for ending this incident—as I suggest we might call it. I hope that I shall receive support from English noble Lords in this House to-day. At any rate, I do feel that, in view of the feeling in Scotland, which cannot be disputed, this has become a preeminently Scottish matter. So as long as
600
it is not doing anything that would be harmful to England or to English people—and I cannot believe that it would be harmful to either of those—I am sure that, if my suggestion were adopted, and the ceremony attached to the coming and going of the Coronation Stone from Scotland were to be put into force, that would be something, done by a Government, of which, of course, the majority are Englishmen, which would redound to their credit and would wipe out an injustice of long and deep interest to Scotland.
4.0 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I regret that I do not possess the vast historical knowledge of this subject which the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has just shown to the House, but I should be grateful if your Lordships would allow me briefly to express my opinion about it. The noble Viscount said that he did not want to be controversial. For my part, I do not want to be controversial, but I am afraid I can hardly avoid it. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that Scotsmen have a right to differ in the House of Lords, and we may as well do so. I believe that when the public read the report of this debate in the Press tomorrow—if it should receive any space in the Press—they will be astonished that, in the midst of a violent economic blizzard, your Lordships' House can find nothing better to do than to revive an unreal controversy, about which I should have thought most people, except Dr. John MacCormick, the editor of the Sunday Express and, of course, the noble Viscount who has just spoken, have already had more than enough.
We hear a lot in these days about public opinion ballots, or, as one paper calls them, straw ballots. I like to be in the fashion, and during the last few days I have been taking a straw ballot amongst my friends. I have a large variety of friends, ranging from Lords and Ladies to navvies and charwomen, and they include all the Scotsmen I can find. The question I put to them, in accordance with the best methods of the people who hold these ballots, was: "Do you consider the destination of the Coronation Stone a matter of sufficient importance for a House of Lords' debate?" In my view, that was a fair question. Not one said "Yes"; some refused to take me

601
seriously; and others replied in unprintable language. The summary was: "Have we not got enough trouble on our plate without stirring all this up again!" That is all I want to say, except this. The noble Viscount made no reference, so far as I can gather, to a speech delivered last week-end by Dr. John MacCormick. I have here a newspaper cutting which says:
"Dr. John MacCormick, convener of the Scottish Covenant Association, said in Edinburgh last night that unless the Stone of Destiny were returned to Scotland then it might be removed again by force.…"
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Did the noble Lord associate me just now with that speech of Dr. MacCormick? I never heard it, I have never seen it, and I do not even know Dr. MacCormick.
LORD MORRISON: The noble Viscount has shown this; afternoon that he is intensely interested in this topic, and I do not think he should take umbrage if I bring him right up to date by reading something which was said by Dr. John MacCormick.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I thought he associated me with what Dr. John MacCormick said.
LORD MORRISON: No. What Dr. John MacCormick is reported to have said is that
"unless the Stone of Destiny were returned to Scotland then it might be removed again by force.…"
I might well say, "So what?" Personally—and I am sure I can carry the noble Viscount with me in this—I do not like this kind of talk, whether it comes from Dr. John MacCormick or anyone else.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I agree.
LORD MORRISON: However strongly he feels about the destiny of the Stone, this mysterious threat to steal it again from a holy place is not very helpful towards a peaceful and friendly solution of the difficulty. It seems to me that Dr. MacCormick has made it impossible for the time being to settle this matter on the lines; the noble Viscount suggested in his speech. Therefore, speaking for myself—and this is not a matter of Party politics—I believe the Government ought to postpone further consideration of this
602
question until after the Coronation. In the meantime Dr. MacCormick's threat to repeat the schoolboy escapade should receive the contempt it deserves. Finally, as a postscript, if the Editor of the Sunday Express, who devoted several columns last Sunday to this issue, would like to print these remarks of mine, I am certain that he will find his readers will be overwhelmingly on my side.
4.7 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am most grateful, to the noble Viscount, Lord Eli-bank, for giving us such an interesting historical lecture. I would tell him that I meet a great many Scots people; I did so during the last Election, and this question was never mentioned at any meeting which I attended—in fact, I never heard anybody in Scotland mention the subject at all. That will show how some people have one experience and others have different experiences. My feeling is this. To those like the noble Viscount, here is a great opportunity. The Coronation Stone has rested in Westminster Abbey for 650 years, and it is used for the coronation of the Kings and Queens of the whole of the British Isles, with the exception now, of course, of Eire. Is it not proper that that Stone should rest where it is used on these great occasions? I believe that no serious-minded person—I do not say that in any disrespect to the noble Viscount—would really want to take that Stone to Scotland and bring it back again. With the great bereavement we have all recently suffered, is not this the moment to bury the hatchet and leave the Stone where it is used? My countrymen and countrywomen are so patriotic that I am sure they would agree with that sentiment. That is all I have to say, except that I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Morrison said. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, will think a little on what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, and I have said, and perhaps "wash out" the whole thing.
4.10 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, my private belief is that, by long prescription, the Coronation Stone is the property either of Her Majesty or the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, and in either case your Lordships' House has no locus to discuss the matter. It is private property which does not concern us. If

603
that be not the case, I should like to say this. The function of the Stone is for the Coronation of our Sovereigns, and, therefore, it seems to me proper that it should be kept in Westminster Abbey. In the second place, and in reply to a great deal of what the noble Viscount said, may I say that I have not the smallest shame about all the events which brought the Stone to Westminster; therefore, I have no wish that history should be rewritten in that respect. I look upon the Stone as one looks upon colours dedicated in a cathedral or church, and to me it would be a wrong act to try and take them back. In conclusion, I will say that I entirely agree with the last words spoken by my noble friend Lord Teviot. If the matter comes up on a later and perhaps a more proper occasion I may have a great deal more to say about it, but at this time I think I have said enough.
4.12 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Elibank for giving another Scots Peer this opportunity of joining with him and saying in your Lordships' House what has been in our hearts for all time touching the Sacred Stone of Destiny—the "Lia Fail." As your Lordships have heard, the Stone was brought to Scotland some centuries before the Birth of Christ. For over 400 years before its removal by Edward I it rested in the Church of Scone which was raised to an Abbey in 1115 by Alexander I. Had this Abbey not been burned by the rioters in 1559. I should have liked to see the Stone returned whence it came. This not being possible, might not St. Margaret's Chapel in Edinburgh Castle be an appropriate resting place, seeing that one of Queen Margaret's sons, Alexander I, had erected an Abbey at Scone to enshrine it? For well over 2,,000 years the life of Scotland has been linked with the Stone of Destiny. Its removal by force of arms was the greatest blow to the honour of Scotland that she ever suffered, and the failure to return it, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Northampton of 1325, made permanent in the minds of Scots a feeling of unfairness, the effects of which are keenly felt throughout Scotland to this day. Her Majesty's Government now have the opportunity of making for the past
604
the amende honorable, as suggested by the noble Viscount, which will bring great joy to all Scots, within the British family and without.
As your Lordships know, many prophecies are attached to the Stone. The Latin inscription which was once on the Stone—
"Ni fallat fatam, Scoti, quocunque locatum, Invenient lapidem, regnare tenentur ibidem"—
bears witness to one fulfilled, since Her most Gracious Majesty comes to the Throne in virtue of descent from James VI, King of Scots. There are legends, too, and one has it that the Stone voices in deep tones its pleasure when the rightful ruler sits upon it, but assumes a "stony silence" towards a usurper. I venture to suggest, therefore, that there should be no reason given for the voice of the Stone to be muted piano, rather than forte, at the Coronation next year. This could be, my Lords, were we Scots to be asked to hail the gracious Lady who, by the will of God, rules over us, other than as Elizabeth "Queen of Scots."
4.15 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I intervene for a few moments in order to support the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. It was a delight to listen to him, and he reminded me of his illustrious brother. This is a question for Englishmen, and I say that in all seriousness. For some reason or other, I have been reproached, and Lord Elibank has been reproached, by Lord Saltoun for daring to raise the question in a free House where we have freedom of speech, and I hope the noble Viscount will return to the attack.
LORD SALTOUN: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, I reproached nobody. I merely gave my opinion as a Peer.
LORD CALVERLEY: The noble Lord, as a Representative Peer of Scotland is entitled to give his opinion, but, he is not entitled to deny the right of any other Peer to express his opinion when it comes in the order of debate, and without saying anything which is distasteful. To an Englishman it is not a question of straw voters or any other form of ballot, and there I disagree with my noble friend Lord Morrison. This is a question of plain right or wrong.

605
A noble Lord opposite—I do not know whether it was Lord Teviot or Lord Saltoun—reproached me because I have not given a dissertation on Scottish history. The less said about some of the phases of Scottish history the better it will be for some of the people concerned. But this is the point: this Stone was looted. That is the proper word for it, and it was used by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. We English, with our great capacity for under-statements, and sometimes for no statements at all, have accepted and become receivers of stolen goods. I am not concerned with Dr. John MacCormick—I do not know the gentleman, although I have been invited to address a meeting; at St. Andrew's Hall, Glasgow, by the Chancellor of Glasgow University. I have myself received many letters from Scotland, as this has now become a live issue. It is offensive to decent Englishmen that we should be classed either as fences or as receivers of stolen goods. I am glad that the spirit of sweet reasonableness went through every word the noble Viscount said. I impress upon your Lordships that this is becoming a live issue in Scotland. I do not want a policy of appeasement with regard to Scotland, but when the Prime Minister said that he had consulted public opinion I am wondering whether he confined it to an Anglicised Scotsman—that is, Lord Saltoun. I say no more about that. If the Prime Minister had consulted not the Editor of the Scotsman but his staff, and said: "What is the public feeling so far as you know it?" he would have received a better opinion than he would from some of the "stooges" he has consulted.
I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, suggested that for the time being this Stone, hallowed as it is, should rest where it is, until the Coronation of Her gracious Majesty takes place and—but we will not look too much into the future. Without being at all sentimental—and I cannot speak, either, as one of the sixteen Representative Peers of Scotland—I say to your Lordships that that Stone ought to be regarded as a symbol of our unity. Great Britain is disunited enough. If the Stone were taken back, with due ceremony, after the Coronation to the Cathedral Church of St. Giles, I think it would be a gracious act on the part of the English people. All Englishmen should feel that the possession of this Stone offends their conscience and
606
that they ought not to be the receivers of something that was shamefully looted 650 or so years ago. Whether one thinks of a thief having been at work 650 years ago or at the present day it equally insults the moral conscience of this country.
4.21 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I am a little sorry for the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank this afternoon; it is rather bad luck that this Motion should come after the Prime Minister had announced the Government's decision on this matter in another place a week ago. The Prime Minister's announcement was made after very careful consideration had been given to the matter. As your Lordships are aware, the Coronation Stone has rested in Westminster Abbey for more than 600 years. I do not wish to become involved in a detailed historical discussion with Lord Elibank; but I must say that if we should be able to snatch and grab back everything that belonged to us in the thirteenth century, it would suit me very well; and if we were to go back to the methods of that time I should be adopting in dealing with the noble Viscount a different technique from that which I am obliged to use this afternoon.
But there have been several occasions since the year 1363—Lord Elibank agrees that that was the last mention of public negotiations concerning this Stone—on which Scottish representatives might have used arguments designed to bring the Stone back to Scotland. The most notable of these occasions arose in negotiating the Treaty of Union in 1706 and 1707. The atmosphere at that time was extremely propitious: the English were very anxious to come to an agreement with the Scots and to get their signatures to the Treaty: and, in fact, they agreed to all the amendments which the Scottish negotiators put forward. There is no reason to suppose that if the Scottish negotiators had put forward an amendment asking that the Stone should be returned to Scotland it would not have been accepted.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Earl will agree that it would have been difficult at the time of the Union to get agreement to a proposal like this.
THE EARL OF HOME: That would seem to reinforce my argument. The English, as I say, agreed to every amendment put forward; and I should have thought, knowing my fellow countrymen as I do, that they would not have hesitated to put forward arguments for the return of the Stone if they really felt strongly on the matter. The noble Lord asked whether these matters were discussed in the negotiations for the Treaty of Union. They were discussed; and it was agreed that the Crown, the Sceptre and the Sword should be the symbolic articles which might be permitted to remain in Scotland. They were named as the honours chosen by Scotland to remain in Scotland, and the Stone was not mentioned at all at that time. I do not wish to make too much of this historical argument. People can change their minds. There may be changes in other ways. But I must say that if there has been strong feeling on this matter, the Scottish people have been very successful in concealing their sentiments for the last 700 years.
The Stone is a relic of great interest and sentiment, but it is one of the relics which, as I say, can be left outside the Scottish Border. There is no doubt that there is a large body of opinion which would feel that the most appropriate place to keep the Stone would be the place where it has its sole significance, and that is in the Throne and in the Shrine where the Royal Sovereign of the United Kingdom is crowned. There would seem to be a substantial body of opinion which feels that way. I feel that that opinion is reinforced by the fact that as we have built up the British Commonwealth throughout the ages this Stone in Westminster Abbey has become an object of historical significance for the whole of the British Commonwealth. Therefore, as I say, this decision, which was taken by Her Majesty's Government so recently, was taken after the most careful consideration. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has expressed the view of, I think, the majority of noble Lords here this afternoon, that this present moment, with a Coronation pending, is not the time at which it is appropriate to reopen this question.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Could the noble Earl make some pronouncement as to the ownership of the Stone?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I would not venture to make any pronouncement on the question of the ownership of the Stone. As the noble Viscount knows, this matter has been hotly debated by many, and, as I said at the beginning, if we are to resume the principle of snatching and grabbing we shall get into difficulties. I do not think I can answer that question this afternoon.

CARGO HANDLING IN THE DOCKS
4.28 p.m.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER rose to call attention to the situation in the docks in relation to cargo handling; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure the minds of most of us are occupied at this moment with the great events which are taking place in another place, and no doubt very soon we shall all be wiser but much sadder men. Nevertheless, I think that the Motion which I rise to move has a very intimate connection with the subjects now being discussed in connection with the Budget. It deals with matters which affect our economy, our industrial life, our trade, our commerce, our shipping, our industry, our Merchant Navy and, not least, our cost of living. Therefore I feel it is a matter well worthy of your Lordships' attention.
There is one matter which I should like to make clear at the outset, and that is that I have no intention in this Motion of making any general charge against the whole body of dockers. There are some 80,000 of them and I imagine that, like any other large section of the population, there are good, bad and indifferent men. My guess would be that probably the good men are in the majority. If I have any complaint to make this afternoon against what is happening in the docks at the present moment, it is an indictment of a small minority of these men who are letting down their mates and also their trade union leaders. I am perfectly sure that those trade union leaders give the right advice in this matter, and try to guide and lead the dockers on the right lines. The largest union concerned is the Transport and General Workers' Union. Anyone who has read the speeches which Mr. Arthur Deakin has

609
made recently upon the undesirability of using industrial action to affect political events may be perfectly sure that he endeavours to guide his Union wisely and rightly. Again, I think it is to the discredit of this small minority of which I speak that they try to make so much trouble for him and to undo his work.
I think public opinion should be made aware of the trouble which this minority makes. The trouble, of course, is that it results in a slow turn-round of shipping in the docks. On that matter I should like briefly to give your Lordships the evidence which bears out the fact that this slow turn-round is a serious factor in our economic life. A speaker at the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association said:
"Delays in port continue to hamper the efficient conduct of the carrying trade. The waste of carrying space from these delays is disastrous and sets at naught the advantages which should flow from improvements in speed and carrying capacity."
Again, a speaker in the Chamber of Shipping at the end of last month said:
"We have an increase in cost of freight, in the time taken in delivery from seller to buyer, a decrease in the amount of cargo a ship could transport in a year. This resulted in a general slowing down of industry. Factories had to face delays and uncertainty in receiving their raw materials. They, in turn, were unable to keep to their export programme."
He asked how the shipping industry could give its maximum assistance in our economic crisis if it could not use its ships to maximum efficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, is to reply to this debate. I understand that he has received in the past a letter from the Association of the British Chambers of Trade which said:
"Elimination of restrictive practices and malpractices would materially assist the nation to hold its own as competition in world markets becomes keener. Perpetuation of the present position can only serve to hasten the eclipse of British shipping and world trade. Any contribution to the national benefit through increased industrial productivity could be vitiated entirely by continuance of the present shipping situation. No other single factor so seriously prejudices the nation's position as a world trading power than the growing costs and deterioration in service in United Kingdom ports."
I think those quotations sufficiently bear out my contention as to the importance of this matter to the economic life of the country, especially at this moment.
As regards these delays, there are, of course, many contributory causes: shortage of deep-water berths, shortage of dry docks and shortage of lighters. I believe that the Port of London is something like 1,000 down on lighters as compared with pre-war. Our export trade is very much greater, but mechanisation lags. Then there is a shortage of rolling stock, of wagons and of lorries for transporting goods to the warehouses. I understand that the Port of London Authority find great difficulty in keeping pace with the demands for berths. I have been told that, if the volume of exports passing through the Port of London prewar was 100, the figure to-day is 280. That is an illustration of the pressure brought to bear upon the Port of London Authority for finding berths.
I will not refer to the question of war damage for it is rather a lengthy subject, but I call your Lordships' attention to one feature of it. Ports abroad have been able to repair their war damage apparently far more quickly than we have been able to. It is a most interesting fact that the appliances now in use at Continental ports are of British manufacture. They are exports from this country. So our ports cannot have what apparently we sent abroad to enable Continental ports to compete with us. May I give one or two examples of delay to put this matter into perspective? I am told that to keep a 10,000 ton ship in port costs some £700 a day. At the same time, the ship itself, an investment of £500,000, is lying idle and not earning. A ship is very likely taking twenty days to turn round to-day, instead of seventeen, which was the average pre-war. Speed is an expensive factor to build into a ship. To give some examples of how the advantages of speed are negatived by this slow turn-round, the manager of the Prince Line read a paper before the Institution of Naval Architects; in which he said that in 1938–39 a ship did 197 days at sea and 168 in port. The corresponding figures for 1947–49 are 146 days at sea and 219 days in port. It now takes five ships to do the work once done by four ships, though, with the increased speed now available, four ships ought to be doing the work of five. Pre-war, a vessel trading with Australia used to do five round voyages in two years. Five voyages on that route that ended in 1950 took three years and ten days—which is one

611
year and ten days over the pre-war average.
How does all this work out in costs of commodities? First, there is timber. Timber is very important for the enormous housing and building programme with which we are confronted at the present moment. Sir William Souttar, addressing the Gateshead and Newcastle Chamber of Shipping, said that three days delay to a timber ship raises the cost of building by £1 per standard. I have read of a timber ship which ought to have taken seventeen days to discharge but which took over a month because of the shortage of lighters. I have heard of fifty timber ships lying in the Surrey Commercial Dock, with no modern facilities for discharge. Ship's gear is used for discharge there. I am sure that other means than ship's gear are employed in Northern ports. As Sir William Reardon-Smith, speaking at the Chamber of Shipping, said, the average time of discharge of 6,000 tons of iron ore is five and a half days, and it ought to be possible to reduce this period to two days or to even less. No wonder costs go up to fantastic heights, in these circumstances. As for the cost involved, a particular ship discharged 5,000 tons in seventeen days, including two Sundays. It employed six gangs of ship-men and six of quay-men. The wages bill was £5,000—that is, £1 to discharge one ton of cargo.
Then there are the liners which sail from Tilbury. Those liners have to sail on schedule; they cannot be held up. Those liners have been leaving cargoes behind because of unofficial strikes or because of outbursts of "go slow" There has been trouble at Tilbury three times in three months. The consequence is that delivery dates "go haywire," of course affecting our competitive power. Consumers for such cargoes, by which our imports are paid for, resent nondelivery, and our markets are endangered. The New York Times is very progressive, in as much as it devotes a column in nearly every issue to shipping news. I wish our papers had the space to do something of the same sort, but of course they have not. On February 3 the New York Times said:
"Delivery dates on (British) exports fall so far behind that customers in the dollar area transfer substantial orders to Western Europe."
612
These delays not only affect our trade in this way but they waste labour and material, because more ships are required to carry the same volume of cargo, so absorbing unnecessary steel and labour in shipbuilding and requiring more dockers and more seamen for crews. Time could be saved in this matter of loading and discharging. It would be the equivalent of adding ships to our merchant fleet without in any way adding to the expense of buying them.
My Lords, I have said that this is a matter which affects the economic life of this country. The shipping industry is a most valuable source of invisible exports. Its annual value is probably over £150,000,000, and possibly approaching £200,000,000. I dare say that the latter figure is the nearer of the two. Therefore in regard to these invisible exports, of which we are in such dire need, it is clear that the country cannot afford the delays which are imposed upon the shipping industry by the state of affairs in the docks. The figure of port and handling charges to a shipping firm has gone up phenomenally. Before the war these charges averaged about 38.5 per cent. of the total outlay of a shipping firm. To-day, they are probably somewhere between 51 and 70 per cent., while the ships are making fewer voyages. Our exporters are seriously troubled by the difficulties which they encounter in shipping to Australia, New Zealand and East Africa. They are urged to step up exports, only to find that they cannot ship them. They are urged to meet competition by reducing their prices. How can they reduce prices while goods invoiced at higher prices are still on the docksides, awaiting shipment? The cost of cargo transfer in British ports is a matter of first importance to the nation. One Report and one White Paper after another has established that the high freight charges involved by these delays contribute very seriously indeed to the high cost of living. If dock work went on smoothly and efficiently port charges would come down, followed by a fall in the prices of imports and exports.
What are the remedies for this state of affairs? Broadly speaking, they fall under two headings—namely, mechanisation and what I would call the human factor. Those are the two broad issues with which we have to deal. I will deal first with mechanisation. Reform and

613
reorganisation are overdue. The time has come to organise the cargo-handling industry on a modern mechanised basis. We want investigations by practical men. We want to find out what can reasonably be done, in what time, and by what number of men. When we have those facts, amongst others, then we shall know not only how to speed up cargo handling but how to redeploy the labour force, and how to handle the problem of redundancy without involving hardship to any now at work in the docks. Some mechanisation has, of course, been introduced, but the Machinery has not always been allowed to run to full efficiency, and it has not been incorporated into a standardised cargo-handling unit or system. It is not that the appliances are not there: equipment is available, but we are not utilising it. Mechanisation is still a problem to be solved, although the Ministry of Transport appointed a Working Party on the subject which consulted the trade unions and the employers. The Report of that Working Party stated that
"Many operations in the docks are now performed by hand which could be partly or wholly mechanised."
So far, so good.
But I have already quoted the Chamber of Shipping Annual Meeting at which a Mr. Mac Tier said:
"Greater use of mechanical aids should reduce handling costs and ultimately the price to the consumer. It seemed, therefore, unfortunate that so little had been achieved towards implementing the recommendations of the Working Party on Turn Round (1948) and on Mechanisation (1950)."
But what stands in the way? Clearly, employers will not risk the expense of installation unless they are assured that the machines will be used to proper efficiency. A Liverpool firm have had some curious experiences. They bought six fork lift trucks at a cost of £1,000 each, and the trucks lay idle for six months. I understand that there was a little trouble about a grain elevator in the Port of London—I believe that it had a name, and that it was called the "Sir John Anderson." The porters complained because it worked too fast, and I believe: that that elevator, which cost some £150,000—I am speaking from memory in regard to that figure—lay idle for a very long time. The managing director of a firm which manufactures industrial trucks has put this problem
614
very clearly and fairly. He says that, if mechanisation is used to full advantage, it seems that the result may be that men are laid off. On the other hand, if it is not so used the result will be uneconomic. That is the short view. But in his view, the long view, mechanical handling would result in such a vastly greater volume of tonnage being handled that it would justify the cost of installation, and would also justify the retention, with some redeployment, of the existing labour force at existing wages.
The dockers most certainly will never accept any degree of mechanisation if it involves labour redundancy while benefiting the employers. But there is very strong evidence bearing out the point of view that in the long run the introduction of modern methods and modern machinery does increase employment and not cause unemployment. The Working Party to which I have referred made what I think was a wise suggestion—namely, that a propaganda campaign should be inaugurated to incalcate amongst the dockers the fact that, in the long run, machinery does not mean unemployment. I believe that, given adequate instruction and information, the young and coining generation of dockers will realise that machines show the way to avoid dirt, fatigue and accidents, while at the same time improving their social and industrial status without the chronic troubles which seem to be inherent in the present system. I have mentioned redundancy, and I admit at once that redundancy is the bugbear of the dockers. The docks carry a great number of old men—I believe something like double the number carried in other industries. The Working Party suggested retiring allowances, but the employers seem reluctant to do what is contrary to general industrial practice. Experts hold that modern cargo-handling methods would not involve large-scale redundancy but would, on the contrary, mean higher wage, less physical effort and better conditions. Sir John Hobhouse, who is chairman of the Employers' Association in the Port of Liverpool, has said—and I think this is an important point—that:
"Employers have gone so far as to give assurances to the trade unions that any displacement of men by the use of machines would not be met by dismissals but by redeployment or the natural process of wastage."

615
If what those experts say is true, and mechanisation does not mean redundancy, then I think that fact cannot be too much preached to the dockers for it will do much to relieve them of one great anxiety which mechanisation causes in their minds.
Having frequently mentioned the dockers, may I, with your Lordships' permission, say one or two things about the characteristics of these men? Work in docks used to be casual labour, and I am told that when that was so the sight was not unknown of a foreman at the "call-on" throwing a bunch of tallies to the ground, the dockers then fighting for those tallies like dogs to whom a bone had been thrown. Men who had experiences like that, who have things like that at the backs of their minds, must be forgiven if they have some slightly warped views. They have not been well-handled and well-treated in the past. Their work was hard and dirty. There were frequent accidents. There was a lack of amenities which the noble Lords, Lord Ammon, first, and now Lord Crook have done so much to remedy—and there is a remarkable programme in this respect coming along. The Dock Labour Scheme of 1947, of course, ended the worst of these abuses, and the guaranteed weekly wage ended financial insecurity. Dockers, I think one may fairly say, are now high up in the industrial scale of pay and conditions. In fact, I should think that possibly they come second only to miners. But there is still amongst them traces of the old spirit of suspicion. The News Chronicle, I think, put it very well in an article which contained this passage:
"Dockers are almost a race apart. In their very separateness lay the fabulous solidarity which enabled them to fight against bad conditions. Now most of their battles are won, yet trouble remains."
I have heard it said, and it is true, that trouble can start for any or no reason. Oldish and older men remember the old conditions, casual labour and unemployment, and, in spite of the guaranteed week, the fear of unemployment still lingers. The Report of that Working Party which I mentioned earlier, speaking of the practice of "One out, all out" says:
"It appears incredibly easy to bring dock workers out on strike. Workers resolutely opposed to the activities of unofficial elements,
616
told us frankly it was too much to expect the average dock worker should remain at work when his mates were out."
I agree that, at first sight, there seems to be something rather fine about that attitude. But new conditions being what they are, and in view of the economic crisis through which we are passing, is that frame of mind really something to be proud of? Ought there not to be a new outlook now? And the employers, too, I feel, have also to take some new factors into account. Now that pay and conditions are good it is quite clear that they must give their attention to what I have spoken of as psychological factors, human factors. They must learn that what is causing trouble between employers and employees is no longer simply a question of pay and conditions: it relates to other things which are deep down. There are things of the spirit, as well as material things, and it is of that field, I feel, that the employer now has to think. Mutual good will would greatly improve turn-round, but with regard to the cultivation of that good will all I will say is that I cannot think that some speeches which I have heard and read—speeches delivered by men who have a part to play in the conduct of our ports—assist in promoting that spirit of good will. When all is said and done, what is wanted to-day is to forget the past, which is the agitator's stock in trade. We want to draw a red line under all that. Great numbers of the dockers are sick and tired of the trouble stirred up by bad elements. I have heard of most interesting movements, one at Immingham and the other in the Port of London itself, started among dockers who realise these things and are trying to do their share to produce better results and a better spirit in the industry.
This is such a vast subject that one has to leave out a great number of matters of importance, but I must say just a word on restrictive practices. It is not possible to deal with this subject without mentioning these restrictive practices, and I base what I have to say about it on a notice issued last year by the Liverpool Dock Labour Joint Committee. It was headed a "Notice to Dock Workers"; it called their attention to an increase of two shillings a day being granted to ensure smooth and efficient working, and it said that this smooth

617
and efficient working was being impaired by:
"Late starts, early finishes, extension of recognised breaks beyond agreed time and unauthorised absences generally."
The Committee declared that:
"Serious malpractices are prevalent in Liverpool and Birkenhead. Work is not being started promptly and is not being continued right up to the proper ceasing time. 'Welting' and other unauthorised absences can no longer be tolerated. All this means that the employer does not get the eight full hours of work to which he is entitled under the agreements, work is lost to the port and turn-round takes far longer than it should."
That is the evidence upon which I, at any rate, base what I have to say about the restrictive practices.
I do not think it is denied that these restrictive practices and malpractices do occur, although, as I have already said, I think they are due to the work of a minority of the dockers and of agitators who foment them. But these restrictive practices are shocking. The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, speaking about "spelling"—that is the system whereby possibly four men out of eight in a gang, or some men out of a gang, are always absent—once described that system as "sheer dishonesty." And so, in fact, it is. I hear of delaying tactics to extend a job into overtime or into a Sunday job, with six hours at double pay; and the under-loading of slings, whereby lifting gear tested for ten or fifteen tons is used to lift three or four hundredweight. There are many of these practices which greatly increase the cost of handling cargoes in ports. These restrictive practices are completely indefensible in view of the national emergency at this moment. I again quote from the Report of the Leggett Committee which bears out what I have said, that the troubles are due to a minority of the dockers. This Report says:
"Many of the dockers themselves realise how short-sighted it is to persist in observing working rules which are completely out of date, and feel uncomfortable when they are obliged to do a job by time-wasting methods."
I have heard of nothing which has been done to implement the findings of that Committee. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, will be able to enlighten my ignorance on that subject, but so far as I have tried to follow up this matter of cargo handling and slow turn-round in docks, I have not heard of anything being done.
My Lords, in conclusion, I come to the most vital question of all. I think your Lordships will agree that I have produced very authoritative evidence indeed to corroborate the statements that I have made. If I have fallen into any errors, I regret it, because my one wish is to stick strictly to the facts and to present this case perfectly clearly. So I hope that I have not erred. But when we come to remedies, amongst them, I think, are these. We want increased research into mechanisation, with a full exchange of information between all concerned. And this introduction of full mechanisation has got to be a nationwide, simultaneous affair. I think we want improved management-labour consultation and co-operation. I am not at all sure that that has yet reached the level which will produce good will in this industry. I think, too, that trade unions, employers and Ministries alike should all campaign to inculcate the advantages of mechanisation and the injury to the consumer (that is, to tile docker himself), and to the nation, of the restrictive practices of which I have spoken. This is a matter of public concern and the Government should put the public first in this matter.
The noble Viscount, Lord -Waverley, is here, and in view of his presence I have been speaking with considerable nervousness and diffidence. The noble Viscount has shown himself in public speeches to be aware of these difficulties and troubles, but he said:
"It is no use getting impatient about this matter. Be content to move slowly, so long as we move in the right direction. The changes we would all desire are bound to come."
That may be so, but we are passing through a time of great crisis and great emergency and, with great respect to the noble Viscount, I am not sure that we can move in this lather slow manner. I should be sorry if I thought the Government entirely accepted that point of view and said, "We need not do anything; we just have to go along slowly and everything will come right." Perhaps I may call the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, to the fact that the present Foreign Secretary, Mr. Eden, when he was in Opposition, made an incursion into this matter of cargo handling in the docks and he asked for

619
"a full inquiry into the working of the docks, including the dock labour scheme, in view of the recurrent stoppages in the industry."
I know that Opposition and Government are two very different things, but may I say that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, will not turn an entirely deaf ear to what the present Foreign Secretary said on that occasion, and that he may have in mind such inquiries and researches as will enable him to give your Lordships hope that this situation in the docks may be cleared up and remedied? I beg to move for Papers.
5.8 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I am sure we are all sympathetic with the noble Lord, Lord Winster, in having to rearrange his date for this Motion, for he has now found himself debating this subject on what is a rather important day in another place. I am sure that there are at the moment more noble Lords in another place than there are in your Lordships' House, because this next half hour, I understand, is the crucial half hour there. I, myself, am anxious to hear what is happening there. I should have liked this Motion to be debated on a more propitious day; it was the intention of the noble Lord himself that it should be. Unfortunately, ill-health compelled him to change the date. He tried to avoid Budget Day and accordingly did not Table it for March 4; but then Budget Day was postponed until March 11, and consequently we find ourselves in this position.
I was a little concerned about this Motion when I first saw it. I know the noble Lord very well—indeed, he and I spent years together in another place—and I know his clarity of mind and his incisiveness, and I wondered what he was up to; what exactly was his reason for putting this Motion on the Order Paper. He disabused my mind very quickly. He told us straight away that he was not going to make an attack on the general body of dockers, but he singled out a minority. Now what we must remember is that minorities generally rule most organisations. Maybe we regret it, but I know the workers' side of the industrial world fairly well and I would say that the
620
average percentage attendance at meetings which determine policy is very low. In the organisation to which I belonged I do not think that we ever exceeded some 2 or 3 per cent., and if we had 5 per cent. of our membership present at a meeting to determine policy we were doing well. That is a matter we are not able to deal with. We are obliged to leave that to the trade unions themselves, and if the Communist sections in the dock trade unions are more active and alive and attend the branch meetings and various other meetings more regularly than the non-Communist, we must expect Communist influence far out of proportion to the number of Communists employed in the docks.
I, like my noble friend, have been very concerned during the past three or four years at what has been happening in dockland, not only in this country but throughout the Commonwealth and in countries outside the Commonwealth. One felt that maybe the Communist Party had realised, "Here is a point where we can hit, and hit hard, the various countries, and help Communism along by that method." That may have been their conception of the best way to communise the world, and we have suffered from it. We then come to the problem of how best we can deal with this peril—and it is a peril. The noble Lord has made some good suggestions. I expected him to make some reference to the problem of mechanisation. It is all very well for those of us here who are not affected by the mechanisation of industry to tell those who are how they ought to react to it. It is all very well to tell them that it is the best thing for the country, and a grand thing for the general population. But the docker views mechanisation from the angle of how it will affect him; and the miner does likewise. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, remembers, during the war I was for some four years responsible for the regional control of Lancashire, Cheshire and North Wales. During that time we had to introduce a certain element of mechanisation in the mines, and I found it most difficult. Not that the miner was not a patriot—there never was a greater patriot than the miner. But the miner viewed the matter from its effect on him and his family. The trouble was that the miner who was not going to be displaced by mechanisation

621
was so sympathetic with the miner who was, that he stood by him. I had to find ways and means of introducing mechanisation in such a way that it would be accepted.
I agree with some of the suggestions made by my noble friend. I agree with propaganda among the general body of dockers to show what mechanisation will mean to,:he industry, with an assurance from the employers that, though the workers may have to change their jobs, they will not be unemployed. I am certain that if the dockers can be satisfied that they are not going back to the bad old days, their attitude towards mechanisation will not be antagonistic. But that has to be shown to them. We have to remember that the dockers, like the miners, Lave very long memories—and you do not need a very long memory to remember those bad old days. The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, knows of the bad days in shipping perhaps better than any other noble Lord. They were the days when you would find a long queue of fine workmen, waiting, hoping, yearning, that they might be selected for a job at 6d. an hour; and accidents then were very frequent in the industry. I think my noble friend is right in saying that the dockers would be well advised not to live too much in the past. But do not blame them because they sometimes look backwards and say: "Shall we ever get there again?" Noble Lords will appreciate that a man or woman who has experienced dire poverty is haunted through life by the fear that it may come again. It warps a man's judgment, and his attitude is not perhaps what it ought to be; he remembers what he suffered in that period of dire poverty, and he is afraid of going through it again. Fear is never a good counsellor. I am sure the noble and gallant Lord the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will agree that in war fear is not a good counsellor; nor is it a good counsellor in industry.
What are the dockers asking themselves about mechanisation? They are asking: "How will it affect me? How will it affect my next door neighbour?" We must find some way of familiarising those employee in the clocks with the possibility of mechanisation as a friend to the country, and, therefore, as a friend to themselves in the long run. But we must keep in mind the personal attitude of the
622
individual docker to something which may result in his being unemployed for a period. The problem of human relations is a big one. One who has now passed on, who was in a high position in this country, once sad to me: "I never thought that a body of men could be so inefficient in industry as the coalowners." I would not insult the shipowners or those responsible for shipping by putting them in the same category. I knew the coalowners a little better they did not show the judgment they might have shown, and their attitude was not as wise as it might have been. The shipowners may be in a higher category. They will need to be if they are to carry through this mechanisation, which I agree is essential for the quick turn-round; and the quick turn-round is essential for a successful shipping industry.
The problem of human relations is a difficult one, not confined to dockland or to any one side engaged in shipping; it applies to both sides. My noble friend Lord Winster was a little disturbed about the counsel given by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, not to be too impatient, and thought we eight to be a little impatient and try to get on with this job quickly. We shall need to be very careful. This is a job which can go forward only slowly; in fact, the counsel given by the noble Lord himself is a counsel of going slowly and consulting everybody. He urges the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, to agree to an inquiry—that is not very quick as a rule—realising that we can get at the root of the trouble only by slow motion. I would counsel the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, to be careful how he handles this problem
I very much appreciate the reference made to my good friend Arthur Deakin. If there is one man who has consistently fought Communist influence in his trade union in this country it is Arthur Deakin. He has taken his official industrial life into his hands more than once. Do not forget that these officials are elected, and, therefore, they can be dismissed; and if the Communists campaign hard enough they may well be dismissed. Arthur Deakin did not waver but set himself against the Communist menace. The best way to deal with the Communist menace is welfare work, and the welfare work which is going on in dockland is remarkable. During the last

623
few years when I have read the reports sent to me from time to time I have been very surprised at what has been done. However, my noble friend Lord Ammon can speak with much greater knowledge of that side of the matter. I do appreciate the temperate manner in which my noble friend approached this problem, and I would recommend that to the noble Lord, Lord Leathers.
5.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, I feel impelled to intervene in this debate because I have had perhaps exceptional opportunities of studying the various elements in the problem under discussion this afternoon. It is important to realise that there are various elements, and to distinguish them clearly. As many noble Lords know, I have been for six years Chairman of the Port of London Authority and for five years President of the Association of Dock and Harbour Authorities. But my education in these matters began much earlier. It began in the 1914–18 war, when I became Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping, when it was founded at the end of 1916, and remained there until the middle of 1919. We in the Ministry of Shipping were then confronted with disastrous losses to British tonnage, amounting over a long period to an average of 200,000 tons gross a week and, in the months of April and June, 1917, to no less than 800,000 tons gross a week.
In those circumstances, special measures had to be taken to promote the flow of traffic through the ports. An organisation called the Port and Transit Executive Committee was set up, and men, organised in military formations—units called transport workers battalions—were put at the disposal of the Committee for the purpose of intervening at any point where there appeared to be a hold-up. Those members of the transport workers battalions, though organised in military formations, were paid at civilian rates. In the ports of France, the work was done by battalions of dockers who were paid at Army rates. Again in the last war special organisation had to be resorted to; special steps were taken in the principal ports on the Clyde, in Liverpool and in London, and great inland depôts were established throughout the country to relieve congestion at the docks.
624
If there were one point on which I might be disposed to offer a general criticism of the speech delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, it would be that he appeared to concentrate his attention rather too much on what happens within the limits of the ports of this country. He spoke, and quite rightly, of the serious consequences of delay in shipping. He mentioned that in certain instances five ships were required to do the work of four. That is not entirely due to deficiencies in the ports of this country, but is due also to what happens at the other end—in Australia or New Zealand, or wherever it may be.
What happens elsewhere in this country than in the ports also has a profound bearing on the flow of traffic through the ports of this country. It is, as I have said, of very great importance that one should recognise the different factors that come into play in this matter. It is not merely a question of what happens in a particular port. One must take account of the factors governing the movement of goods at all stages, inward from the arrival of a ship in port to the ultimate destination of the goods or, as the case may be, outward from the point of origin of the goods to shipment coastwise or overseas. In other words, there must be co-ordination of the flow of traffic through the port with the movement of goods by road, rail or barge. On this co-ordination of the different agencies concerned—"integration" is the word used in the Transport Act, although I have never been quite sure what that meant or was intended to mean—the maintenance of a steady rhythm and the avoidance of bottlenecks depend. Success depends, therefore, on the effective co-operation of a number of authorities, some within and some outside the limits of any port.
Even within a port the position is far from simple. Conditions, indeed, differ from port to port, but nowhere could it be said that the solution of the problem we are discussing lies wholly, or even mainly, within the sphere of the port authorities. In general, port authorities are responsible for the maintenance of navigable channels, for the provision of facilities for the handling of ships and cargoes and for warehouse accommodation. There the similarity ends. Even that statement is subject to qualifications—for instance, where wharves are privately owned. In many ports, such as

625
Liverpool, the port authority has no responsibility for the handling of cargoes. London differs. May I here offer just a word of explanation, although I do not wish to burden your Lordships with too much detail? We have in the Port of London five dock systems. In all those dock systems the Authority is responsible for the handling of outward cargoes, with the one exception of a few leased berths which are very much in the position of privately owned wharves. As regards inward cargoes, at the India Docks and St. Katharine Dock we—the Port Authority—discharge the ships; we are responsible for the actual stevedoring on the ships. Elsewhere that work is the responsibility of shipowners, who also handle the goods on the quay, though only as agents of the, Port Authority. Even with these responsibilities which I have briefly described, the Port of London Authority, while the largest single employer in the Port, employs on an average only 4,000 men out of a total of 32,000. It is necessary to mention those facts in order that the distribution of responsibility may be realised. London also differs from most of the other ports of the country in that a high proportion—more than half—of the cargoes are handled overside to or from barges.
I come now—and I intend to be very brief—to some of the causes, or alleged causes, of unsatisfactory out-turn—the noble Lord, Lord Winster, referred to some of them. I believe that there is no better worker than the British docker when he is at work, and it is fair to say that the out-turn per gang-hour to-day compares not unfavourably with the out-turn per gang-hour before the war. But, of course the hours worked are shorter, and it may be said with truth that the out-turn ought to be better, because the standard of health of the workers is probably better and because of the use of mechanical appliances, about which I shall have to say a word in a moment. Time is undoubtedly lost, and quite unnecessarily lost, through various restrictive practices and through excessive breaks. I do not think that we in this country have ever suffered from "spelling," as it is called, to the extent that the noble: Lord, Lord. Winster, implied. When I was in New Zealand more than a year ago I found that "spelling"—which meant that half the gang worked
626
and half the gang sat in a shed and smoked or played cards—was a very serious evil. I have been happy to learn from the newspapers that that has been brought to an end. As I say, I do not think that the evil ever attained such dimensions in this country.
Then there is what is known as the "continuity" rule—that is, a rule under which, when a gang start work on one hatch of a ship, if something happens down in the hold which slows down work or stops it temporarily and another hatch is available, the men will not move to the other hatch. Then there is the practice under which, when gangs are made up, broken gangs are not completed by a process of redistribution from other gangs but they wait and will not start work until men have come from outside, perhaps quite a long distance, to make up the gangs to the recognised numbers. I mention these points because they should be in the minds of noble Lords when the problem as a whole is being reviewed.
Now a word as to the attitude of the men to the introduction and to the use—and "introduction" and "use" are two quite different things—of mechanical appliances, which in practically every case ought not only to result in a great saving of physical effort but should lead to greatly improved results from the same hours of work. This is rather a sad story. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, referred to a particular case of a grain elevator in the Port of London which has had some publicity during recent months. That elevator was one of two purchased by the Port of London Authority—the noble Lord was quite right—at a cost of £150,000. Its great fault, in the view of some, is that it is capable of handling up to 300 tons of grain an hour. The older appliances mostly handled about 100 tons an hour, and one or two up to 200 tons an hour. It was said: "This is going to take the bread out of our children's mouths"—a rather curious metaphor to apply to a thing which was going to handle grain at such a rapid rate. When that appliance was first available for us the men demanded rates of pay which would have made its use quite uneconomic. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, would agree with me, when I say that, generally speaking, when a

627
mechanical appliance or technical device is introduced it is reasonable that the benefit should be distributed, some to the body responsible for introducing the appliance as a return for their enterprise and initiative and as an encouragement to go forward; some to labour, which is reasonably entitled to share in the prosperity of the industry with which it is connected; and some part, surely, to the public. After five weeks of idleness the rates were negotiated on a provisional basis for three months.
I must here give some figures; and I realise that in doing so I am open to the suspicion of attacking people. I am not attacking anybody, except perhaps on the score of lack of imagination. But the fact is that, at the rates agreed, no advantage whatever in saving accrues to the Authority. There is here no question of reducing the number of men employed: no reduction has been asked for. The whole benefit resulting from the introduction of this very efficient appliance is going to the men. One would not, perhaps, criticise that very strongly if the men could be said to have been underpaid. But that is very far from being the position. I have obtained from the Dock Labour Board figures which I am told are typical of pay to corn porters employed on grain elevators, though not on this particular machine, which is exceptionally efficient. Taking a typical gang of twelve men—a gang is really fourteen, but taking twelve men—six trimmers and six gangers, employed on the India Docks and the Royal Docks every day, the average wage over a period of forty-eight weeks was £15 a week. That figure speaks for itself. The only advantage the community gets is in the quicker turn-round of ships. The cost to the receiver of the corn cannot be reduced, as I have explained.
Now I come to a case which is different in some respects—the fork lift truck—and I bracket with it other devices, mechanical trolleys of various kinds, light travelling cranes, conveyors and so on. It would surely be a very curious coincidence if the form of organisation or the method of working found by long experience to be appropriate where the whole of the work is carried out manually proved to be equally the most efficient, the most effective and the most satisfactory when mechanical appliances are introduced.
628
Actually, it is not so; it can be demonstrated that it is not so. The noble Lord. Lord Winster, quite rightly spoke of redeployment. When these mobile appliances are introduced, the mobility of the men constituting the gang should be increased; it should be made to correspond to the mobility of the appliance. When the gang is broken up and the units of it work separately from one another—where they are working, that is, under new conditions—those units should be regarded as one and the men should be interchangeable. There would, no doubt, as a result of such a reorganisation, be some reduction of man-power; it is in the reduction of man-power that the financial advantage which accrues to the community occurs. In the Port of London there is no question of profit. It is only in that reduction of man-power that the advantage mainly arises.
The problem, as I have tried to explain, is simply one of organisation, to which there is an obvious solution. Why, then, do the men cling to their outworn conceptions? Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor explained why, and I agree very largely with what he had to say. He pointed out that the workers have long memories. They also have, as Lord Winster said, strong loyalties—almost passionate loyalties. A man is not willing to work himself out of a job; still less will be work his mate out of a job. And remember, my Lords, the dockers are almost entirely dockers' sons; there is a tradition running in the family. The noble Lord quoted something I said in Glasgow about a year ago about the need to move slowly-I would rather say, the folly of trying to move too quickly. I am not content that we should not move at all. It is a matter of experience that appliances purchased at considerable expense as a matter of faith by the employers have been left idle. That is a situation which can be remedied only by a patient process of education. I agree profoundly that there is more to be done—and this also I said in my speech in Glasgow—in the sphere of human relations than by any process of physical reorganisation such as was relied upon by the authors of the Transport Act, although there is a case for physical reorganisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Winster, referred to the need for more deep water berths, more dry docks and more lighters.

629
There is certainly some-thing in that point. I do not think that in the Port of London we suffer on the whole from any shortage of deep water berths. I see every morning charts showing the location of ships in each of the five dock systems in the Port of London; and it is rarely that there is not one or perhaps two or three or more berths vacant—vacated, perhaps, only twenty-four hours before, and awaiting the arrival of ships. As regards dry docks—and we have ten of these in the Port of London—one of the most difficult problems confronting the Port of London is that of keeping pace with changes of design and tonnage of ships. There are also difficulties of materials and of war damage to be made good. It is unfortunate if ships come into port which cannot be handled as effectively as we were able to handle their predecessors. Take one simple thing, the stabiliser, which is a device for presenting the rolling of ships. It depends on a system of fins or vanes. When a ship so equipped comes into dry dock, the owner naturally wants to manipulate the fins; but this means making deep slots or cuttings into the dry dock. This takes time. It is very sad indeed to find that ships often have to go from ports in this country to ports on the Continent to carry out running repairs. In that regard I must confess that the Port Authority are in a position of complete helplessness, because repair facilities, apart from the actual dry docks and cranes, are in no sense under the control of the Authority. That is a matter which merits close consideration.
Before I pass from that point, I should like to say something in regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, on the subject of barges. The tonnage of barge, available in the Port of London has not in fact suffered any reduction. There has been a reduction in numbers because, on the average, the barges are larger, arid perhaps by reason of the reduction in numbers the mobility is less. But, as I shall show in a moment, the real trouble lies elsewhere. As between the ports and the outside agencies to which I referred at the beginning, this problem arises. The lightermen work up to seven o'clock at night. The wharves work only until five o'clock. If you probe the problem, you find that the reason for the differnce is that the factories and the warehouses which receive the goods out-
630
side the port limits are probably conditioned to a five-day, forty-hour week. So what is the good of working longer hours in one section? means that the barges or the railway wagons, of which there is, as the noble Lord said, sometimes a shortage, have to be used quite improperly and wastefully as warehouses to bridge the gap between the hours of work of the lighters and the hours of work in the outside agencies which form part of the same chain of processes by which the goods are carried out or carried in.
I have tried to survey, briefly, the various elements in the problem as they are seen from the point of view of a port authority. There is here a general problem of organisation which merits attention—I will not say on a higher level but, with respect to my noble friend, on a different level. I can assure my noble friend Lord Leathers that in any measures that he and his colleagues may think fit to propose for bringing the fullest possible influence to bear with a view to meeting the various difficulties and deficiences that are known to exist and securing a satisfactory solution, the dock authorities for their part will offer the fullest and most complete collaboration.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I did not like to interrupt the noble Viscount during his interesting speech, but may I ask whether he would agree that there are two dry docks in London (I agree they are small) that are rapidly deteriorating at the present time owing to some dispute as to liability for war damage, and so on?
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, I do not know whether it is a dispute as to war damage. There is one dry dock which will probably have to be diverted to some other use. May I, with your Lordships' indulgence, say a word on war damage for one moment? It is perfectly true that the repair of war damage has proceeded more rapidly in some Continental ports that it has in this country. One of the reasons for that lies in the nature of the damage. For example, in Rotterdam the damage done consisted mainly in the breaking down of dock walls. In London and in some of the other ports the damage consisted mainly in. the destruction of warehouses. The actual port equipment, apart from the storage facilities, has been very largely restored, but warehouses will

631
take a long time to restore. For example, in the Surrey Commercial Dock which was completely destroyed by fire, there are many sheds and warehouses needing to be rebuilt.
LORD BURDEN: And in the East India Dock too.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: Yes. There is one other word I should like to say, now that I am on my feet again. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, said that there are no modern appliances in the Surrey Dock. There may not have been at the date of the information upon which he based his remarks, but I can assure him that we are in the process of introducing the most effective cranes in the Surrey Docks. Generally speaking, we have a large programme of cranes, both electric and hydraulic, of which we are gradually taking delivery.
5.46 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord who introduced this Motion has certainly brought a very important matter before your Lordships' House. I think it has a considerable bearing on the financial position of the country at the present time. I intervene in this debate only because during the first year of the war I had a good deal to do with the Port of London. We have listened to a most interesting speech by the noble Viscount. Lord Waverley. There is no doubt that slow turn-round of ships in ports is due to various causes, such as insufficient berthing—which I think was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winster—and insufficient warehouses and transit shed accommodation. In some cases this is due to unrepaired war damage. Then again, there is the failure in some ports to clear goods from the transit sheds quickly enough. There is also the need for more mechanisation and more modern port appliances. On top of all this, there are, of course, certain labour difficulties and so on which have been mentioned by the noble Lord who introduced this Motion.
I propose for a few moments to deal with another aspect of the problem—namely, the set-up of the National Dock Labour Board. I am sure it is true to say that the recent outbreaks of unrest in the docks, involving unofficial stoppages, were to a considerable extent due to the
632
set-up of the present dock labour scheme, and not entirely due to Communism, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. I have no doubt that the setup of this Board was well-intentioned in every way, but I would say that practical experience of its working over the last six years has shown up many of its faults and defects. In the first place, the organisation of the National Dock Labour Board has had the effect of introducing between the employers and the workers a third party, who are of course the legal employers of the men. I have little doubt that the Dock Labour Board are regarded by many of the men as a soulless and somewhat impersonal organisation. What is more, they are regarded, perhaps, by the employers as a barrier between themselves and the workers. I think this tends to produce a sense of frustration and a deterioration, I would say, of the human factor.
The old legal joint consultation machinery of the docks industry was far better because the actual employers and the workers met on equal terms. As your Lordships are aware, that machinery has now been practically superseded by the Dock Labour Board. A further complication arises by the fact that the Board includes amongst its members union representatives who are placed, I should say, in the invidious position of being judges of their own cause. What is the result? The union men are inclined to adopt an attitude which either undermines the authority of the Board or gives the impression of failing to look after the interests of the men. The men in the docks, I feel, cannot accept this dual position. There is no doubt that the authority of the union is often weakened thereby, and the men turn to the subversive elements which undoubtedly cause these unofficial stoppages.
It is not easy to suggest how to remedy the defects which I have mentioned. It is true that no one in his senses would favour a return to casual labour; on the other hand, I would say that it is essential that better discipline should in some way be secured. In fact, the solution may well be in the drastic remedy of eliminating the Board, at any rate as it is composed at present, and placing the responsibility for administering the scheme on the employers, with, of course, full use of the joint consultative

633
machinery. I have little doubt that if that were done a new and better spirit would prevail throughout this industry. Of course there is another alternative, which might well be the setting up of a completely independent body to administer the scheme, the members of which would not be directly representative of the two sides of the industry as they are at present. I suggest that perhaps this organisation would be the best solution of all for the administration of dock labour.
It has been suggested in one or two quarters, although not in this House today, that the output of dock workers is considerably below what it was a few years ago. In some cases that is undoubtedly true, but I would say that a comparison with pre-war figures shows in some ports an improved rate of working per gang-hour. On the other hand, as was mentioned by Lord Waverley, due to shorter effective working hours the turn-round of the ships is no better, and sometimes it is worse. There is another factor which is liable to cause delays in clearance—I think the noble Viscount mentioned it. The normal working time for a ship is a five and a half day week, and often it is a six and a half day week, whereas, in most cases, the receivers of cargo are now working only a five-day week. This is bound to lead to a certain amount of congestion in the ports and to a slowing down in the turn-round of ships.
I have little doubt that conditions would greatly improve if the dockers could be educated to appreciate the use of improved mechanical methods, and I too think it is a pity that so little has been achieved towards implementing the recommendations of the Working Party on Turn Round, 1948. There was another Working Party set up in 1950, which dealt with mechanisation. I would also say that one of the most serious defects in some of our major British ports to-day (I think this does not apply to the Port of London) is the shortage of deep-water berths. The average length and draught of both liners and tramp steamers has increased very considerably in the last few years, and in consequence too many berths are to-day obsolete. Another cause of the slow turn round of our ships is the system of Government bulk buying, which has the effect of
634
causing congestion in a few of our large ports at the expense of others. For instance, the Minister of Food's orders may have the effect of concentrating cargoes at a port serving the area whose turn it is to receive the distribution of a particular commodity, and then suddenly the cargoes are switched to another port.
The shipping industry could undoubtedly increase its contribution to invisible exports if turn round of ships could be speeded up. The contribution of the shipping industry to our invisible exports for last year was something in the nature of £150,000,000. This year it may well be up to something like £200,000,000. It is true that we are not the only country suffering from these port defects. As your Lordships are aware, the turn round of shipping in Australia is particularly bad, and it has been suggested there that shippers should be charged a fee if their goods were not removed from the port within a specified time limit. In fact, I understand that if the turn round in port of a liter in the Australian trade could be speeded up by 10 per cent., either on this side or the other, her earning capacity would be increased to the extent of something like £20,000. I hope Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to speed up the turn round of ships in our ports, which would considerably aid the country's financial position at the present time.
5.56 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I began to think there would be nothing left for me to say after Lord Winster and Lord Waverley had spoken. I agree with both of them in the main. But at least I have something to say about what the noble Lord, Lord Teynharn, has said. However, I want first just to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" in regard to Lord Winster's opening statement about the length of voyages of ships at sea and their stay in port. So far as this country is concerned, with all its faults, the situation is as nothing compared to that in Australia, New Zealand and some other countries. The state of the docks in those countries has been very bad indeed. It is true that something has yet to be done with regard to our own country, but as I have said again and again we have got to remember the heritage that the dockers took over long ago. After all, in relation to the Stone of Scone, we have listened to-day

635
to something dating back to the thirteenth century. If that rankles over all these centuries, why should we wonder at the feeling of the men who have emerged from a state of affairs in which they were the very flotsam and jetsam of society. All the weaklings and failures drifted to the docks, worked when they liked or when they could, and how they could, but with no high standard of life. The Dock Labour Board scheme has done something of immeasurable importance to this country, in that it has lifted these men out of that rut and given them a standard of decent livelihood and a status in society. It has removed the great blot on our economic system whereby these men fought like wolves at the dock gates in order that they might get work.
I have said again and again in public, both in voice and in print, that there is room for the Dock Labour Board scheme to be revised. One does not know the weakness of anything until it has been tried out. This scheme has been working for some time, and some of us know some of the weaknesses. But the delay is not all due to the dockers. There is an endeavour to get both systems working. You cannot have both a casual labour system and the security of the Dock Labour Board scheme. We have got to come to a decision on that point. It is true that there are some troublesome elements, but they have been very quiet of late, due no doubt to an inquiry which is going on as to their conduct and how they could be treated. An opportunity was lost by the former Government to deal with that matter about two years ago. The whole matter could have been properly settled on that occasion. The opportunity will never again present itself as it did on that occasion, when imported Communists sought to sow dissension. They did this, and they were allowed to get away with it.
What is the position to-day? There are now 78,000 people, all more or less under the direction of the Dock Labour Board. Their average earnings are £9 11s. 2d. a week, ranging from £8 4s. 8d. in Cornwall to £11 in London. That is a different standard of living altogether from anything they knew before, with conditions of labour, both in welfare and in other ways, that are
636
almost unknown in any other industry. But somehow, as Lord Winster has shown, in his quotations from the Report of the Committee presided over by Sir Frederick Leggett, they have been the easiest people in the world to persuade to go on strike, because of their sense of misplaced loyalty—a sense which we hope will be overcome in due time.
So much ground has been covered in this debate that very little is left to me. I want for a short while, however, to deal with the question of restrictive practices. I wonder whether it is generally realised that for every day that a 10,000-ton ship is in dock it costs about £600. That has a substantial effect in increasing the cost of living. I admit that it is difficult to assess exactly what is involved, but it is certainly a tremendous lot. And both sides, to a large extent, bear responsibility in this matter. Owners have been only too willing to take advantage of the tremendous boom in trade and to agree to delays, knowing that they are going to recoup themselves on freight charges.
A good deal has been said about "spelling," refusal to work in short gangs, and redundancy. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, has endeavoured to give your Lordships some idea of what "spelling" means. It means, for example, that if there is a gang of, say, sixteen men working, four or five of them break away and have a rest and yet still draw their full money. Nothing is being done to meet that sort of thing. If more authority were vested in the National Dock Labour Board they would be able to deal with problems of that kind. It is true that these practices can be reported, but they have to be reported to the owners, and it is then for the owners to deal with those concerned. If the National Dock Labour Board should indicate a change of policy, the local boards have the power to turn it down if they wish and not go forward with it. It is a sort of comic opera situation. But it is implicit in the Act itself, and to a certain extent the National Dock Labour Board are powerless to deal with it. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has raised this point, and I hope that, in spite of their other preoccupations at the moment, the Government will look at it to see what steps can be taken.
Like Lord Winster, I feel that something has to be done, and done quickly,

637
because matters are getting into a very serious state. There are no reliable statistics to set against the pre-war figures as to the time it takes to turn round ships, but it has been estimated that, taking the pre-war time of a turn-round at seventeen days, it would now occupy about twenty days. But, as I have indicated, that is only an estimate, and it is not based on reliable statistics. What can be taken for a fact, however, is that Rotterdam, Hamburg and Antwerp, have become virtually new ports, owing to the conditions to which Lord Waverley has referred, and they are going all out to capture the deep-water trade if they can. Certainly they are doing everything possible to attract it, and there is a very great danger that we may lose much of our trade—and it will be irrecoverable if it is lost—unless something is done so that we may see more efficient handling of ships and cargoes in our ports. One thing that we need is priority for building, to enable us to make good wastage, caused by the war, in London and other ports. These are the things we are fighting about.
I have referred already to "spelling," and another cause of delay has been reported to me from Liverpool. The work of unloading a ship may go on all night, but the wharves are all locked up and the cargo is left on the quayside. As a consequence, gangs which go on in the morning may find that they cannot start on the work of unloading until the goods have been cleared from the quayside. Lord Waverley, I am sure, will agree that that is not an unfair statement of the position. Equally, I regret to say, the same sort of thing may apply owing to lighterage difficulties (this is a matter which Lord Waverley did not touch upon) particularly shortage of craft. Take the case of imported timber. A ship comes in laden with timber. More than one merchant is interested in the cargo. Merchant "A" may have the top hold while merchant "B" has the bottom hold. Merchant "B" may have his barges all ready, but he cannot get his timber until "A" has moved his; and "A," maybe, has not got his barges ready, or he is delayed. Therefore "B" is held up, and there is great loss of time. There is not enough accommodation, either in barges or sheds, to meet the difficulties
638
which arise. Many of them could be met and overcome if we had the proper machinery at hand, and if those responsible were properly supported. What has been happening is simply the case of the Luddites all over again. The men are hostile to the use of certain machines because they fear that their use will result in unemployment. Yet there is no real need for any fear of that kind. That is one fear which the National Dock Labour scheme should have banished. Under that scheme it can be ensured that no one will be dismissed and no one will suffer. The problem of displacement can be dealt with merely by wastage, by a closing of the registers until such time as natural wastage has made good any deficiency.
It is true, as has been said, that it is easy to get dock workers to strike. That is a matter which is referred to in the Leggett Report. I believe that this tendency may be overcome, and will be overcome, with a little patience and a little education. There are plenty of able, intelligent and decent fellows amongst the dockers, but they are still a little apprehensive and are rather inclined to be led away by yarns and slogans. Exhortations to "soak the rich," or "get your own back," and slogans, such as, "There is plenty of money in the kitty" are apt to influence their minds. And I believe that to some extent this attitude on their part has been promoted by the conduct of the Government. Unless these troubles are quickly and resolutely dealt with, not only will one of the best social schemes ever launched be wrecked, but much of the trade and commerce entering British ports will be diverted to Continental ports and lost irrevocably. I believe that basically the docker is as good a Briton as can be found. What he needs is firm and confident leadership, not only from the trade unions but from Government level. The longer it is delayed, the more difficult it will be to find a solution.
The whole of this matter has been put before the House this afternoon in a way in which it has never been put before, and I think it has been made abundantly clear that unless the Government help with the co-operation of the trade unions, and an inquiry is held into many of the weaknesses which now exist, the situation will not improve. As I have

639
stressed, the National Dock Labour Board should have more power under the scheme. They are not by any means in the position of employers. To a large extent they are merely agents. They have done a great deal of work and a great deal to better the conditions of the dockers. Many a man has said to me how great a difference he feels the scheme has made in his life, and I have plenty of letters to the same effect. Yet somehow, when the call comes to strike, some of these men seem to respond almost unthinkingly. In the case of one strike we actually had men who were "out" come to us to ask what the strike was about. They had simply responded to the call "All out" as it went from dock to dock. Firm action must be taken with those responsible for agitation in the docks. No one will be happier than the average docker himself, if someone will deal with the agitators in the manner in which they ought to be dealt with.
Power and authority must be given for dealing with those who cause disruption of business at the docks. The unions can handle this matter if they will, and if they are given proper support. Troubles of the kind to which I have referred will not be cured, I suggest, by any measures of appeasement. It is no use condoning slowing down tactics, for any relief gained will be but temporary, and disputes will soon break out again. This is not idle talk, and I hope that the Government will give serious heed to what has been said and will take suitable action. That, my Lords, is all I have to say, for I cannot improve on what has already been so well said by other speakers in this debate. I conclude by reiterating that I am confident that the National Dock Labour Board's scheme can be made to work, and difficulties which we have been discussing can be overcome if and when there is the will to overcome them.
6.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN: My Lords, the greater part of the speeches which have been made in your Lordships' House this afternoon on this subject have been concerned with labour and with mechanisation, which is to some extent an aspect of the labour side of the problem. But I should like, speaking as a shipowner (and declaring my interest accordingly), to reinforce very strongly
640
indeed what fell from the lips of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in making the point that what happens in the docks and, above all, what happens between the ship's hold and the quayside is only a small part of the whole problem, and labour is not by any means the whole of that part. Indeed I think it would almost be true to say that, supposing we solved the whole labour problem miraculously overnight, the result would be to create such an appalling congestion tomorrow morning that we should be almost worse off than we are this afternoon. For, after all, the causes of delay (many of which have been recited already this afternoon) are to a great extent not ones primarily affected by labour: awaiting a berth; congestion on the quay—yes, partly; awaiting cargo—certainly not dock labour, but maybe labour somewhere else; shortage of cranes; breakdown of cranes; shortage of lighters; and finally, one thing which has not been mentioned but which is quite important though it has not changed very much perhaps since before the war, the incidence of the weather. That has a very considerable effect upon the possibility of the regularity of work in docks, more particularly when those docks are, as ours are largely in this country to-day, not perhaps as fully equipped as we should like them to be.
Again from the shipowner's point of view, I should like to say a word more than Lord Waverley has already said about delays which are incidental, but extremely important, arising from such matters as the difficulty of getting a ship dry-docked quickly enough in order to present her at the right time and at the right place. Delays in the repairs of ships are a very considerable cause (indirect but considerable) of delays in the actual handling of cargo. They may, of course, be a direct cause, as, for instance, where repairs are being done to a ship in berth. Because they are not got out of the way quickly enough you may have one or more hatches unusable for a considerable period of the ship's loading time. While I sympathise with the difficulties of the dock authorities to which also Lord Waverley referred, I think it is fair to say that, in the long run (and, indeed, perhaps even in the short run) it is the dock which will have to conform to the ship, and not the ship to the dock. There are, after all, many more ships than docks

641
and they visit them extremely frequently. One dock, if properly designed, can deal with a great many ships in the course of a year, and, as Lord Waverley rightly said, one cannot hold up and interfere with the technical development of ships, which is a slow but continuous process, for fear that somebody ashore will not match one's development with his own
The other point I should like to make—and this is perhaps merely an extension of what I have already said—is that the whole of this docks problem is only one piece of a continual process, which starts with the goods having the factory or with the raw material leaving the mine or the farm, or wherever it may be at the other end, and does not really finish until the goods have reached either the consumer, if they be finished goods, or the manufacturer, if they be raw materials; and it is no good trying to separate any part of that process from the rest of it. It is the old pipe-line problem: you push something in at one end of the pipe, and until it comes out of the other it is no use to anybody. It you try to hurry up its passage through the pipe at one stage you are apt to cause congestion at the next. The moral of that is that the problem is not to be solved by one grandiose gesture. You can get to the end of it only by realising that it is part of a continuous process and, moreover, that that process differs markedly with the port, even with the time of year, with the ship and with the berth. It is a fearful individual problem if you are really going to get the quickest turn-round of every kind of ship in every kind of port.
I do not think it is altogether fair to say that the shipowner sits back and does not particularly care about it because he can always add something to the freight. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, made a suggestion which faintly indicated that, and it has, I think, been implicit in one or two other remarks which have fallen from noble Lords during the afternoon. I should like to make perfectly clear that no possible increase in freight can compensate the shipowner for the loss of the use of his ship for even a short space of time. Figures have been given which suggest that at the moment five ships are doing the work which ought to be done by four. It is a comparatively simple process of costing to work out what increase of freight would be necessary to compensate the shipowner for
642
having to build an extra ship and having to work her. There is probably nobody so keen as the shipowner to get his ship turned round faster, because he knows very well that nothing else will do him—or, for that matter, the world at large—so much good. Reference has been made to the contribution of shipping to our invisible exports. I do not want to go over that again except to say that I think the figures which have been given may even now be on the low side.
The other suggestion which has been made about the shipowner is that the matter is to a great extent within his own control as an employer of dock labour (which, very often, incidentally, he is not, though often he would like to be more than he is) and that the problem can be solved by the shipowner and by the port authorities, alone or together. Nothing could be further from the truth, because, as I have said, the problem—I should not like to say how much of it, but a very great deal of it—lies outside the docks altogether. It was that which led the Chamber of Shipping and the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association the other day to call into consultation with them representatives of the Federation of British Industries, of the Federation of British Chambers of Commerce (whose letter was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, earlier this afternoon) and of the National Union of Manufacturers, to see whether, as users of port facilities and of transport facilities up to the water's edge, they could not, by putting their heads together, help to ease each other's problems and also ease the problems of the port authorities themselves by doing what they could to smooth the flow of goods, to try to avoid the more sudden rushes, to investigate delay quickly where it happens, and generally, and by no means least, to urge, wherever they thought it proper, upon the port authorities and even perhaps upon Her Majesty's Government such remedies as might appear to their joint examination to be desirable. For, after all, to a great extent this is necessarily a matter for them.
I do not know that noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships so far have attempted to estimate—and I should not be rash enough to do so, either—the amount of difficulty which arises from the shortage of equipment, whether it be immediate mechanical equipment or capital

643
equipment in the form of more deep water berths and, above all, perhaps, more sheds and warehouses. I am inclined to think—but it can be no more than a guess—that that is much more a single cause of the problem than is the working of dock labour. It is a rash statement to make, and I make it with considerable hesitation, more from the point of view of emphasising the importance of the capital equipment side than with any desire to reduce the importance of the labour side. If those things are to be tackled, they must be tackled on the basis of as much knowledge as we can get. Any shipowner and, I imagine, any port authority, will be able to tell you how things strike him from day to day in his own ships or in his own port. It may well be in the end that that is the knowledge, and the only knowledge, which will really help. But we have been asked by the Government, and we are doing our best, to provide figures on a rather more general basis. I should like to say only one thing about that. I hope that any such figures, should they be made public, will be used with the utmost caution, because it is practically certain that they can easily become misleading and, however accurate they may be in themselves, may lead to wrong conclusions if they are taken in hand by persons without expert knowledge, and sometimes without even local knowledge of the ports to which they refer.
As the causes of delay are so various, so must the methods to remove them be. Let us therefore learn what we can about the problem, and then start, wherever and whenever we can.
LORD AMMON: Will the noble Viscount allow me to interupt for a moment? I mentioned that the owners could make good on increased rates. I give him as my authority a special commissioner of the Daily Telegraph, who in August, 1951, was told by one shipowner:
"The axiom of the shipowner is that he must keep his ships running at all costs. If this means that dockers want more money for the job, whether in the form of a special enhanced piece-rate or overtime earnings, the shipowner pays because he can cover the cost by his freight charges."
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN: I thank the noble Lord, and I am sorry that I slightly misunderstood what he was saying. If I
644
may retake the point, I would say that I should not entirely agree with my colleague, whoever he may be, if he said precisely that to the Daily Telegraph. What I would agree is that, so great is the importance of getting one's ship turned round rapidly at the present time, it is worth while to pay a great deal more money than one normally would in order to secure it. I do not think that the statement that one can pass on that extra charge forthwith to the merchant is justified by the facts. Indeed, I think it is true to say that there has been no case of an increase in freights by liner conferences in consequence of dock delays in this country. It has been tried in one or two places abroad, with the object, quite frankly, of drawing the attention of the local authorities to the fact that something was wrong. I think I am right in saying that in those cases, the surcharge in some instances has been dropped, the object having been achieved; and in others it proved impossible to work. I do not wish to enter into controversy with the noble Lord on this point. I think we are probably in agreement—at any rate, I hope so.
May I turn back for a moment to what the remedies are, and can be? We have heard that the education of labour must be a slow process. We know, and I fear may increasingly learn, that the provision of capital equipment will be a difficult process, though I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government may be able to give us some encouragement on that score. There is clearly something that can be done by the people concerned getting in touch with each other and seeing if they can improve their organisation. Improved organisation costs little and generally saves rather a lot. We have heard, for instance, that it might be possible for the Ministry of Food, in particular, so to arrange their buying programmes that they do not cause avoidable congestion of ships at particular ports or at particular times. I do not know how much can be done, but I think that that is something to which further attention can be given. There is something that I believe can be done towards reconciling the difference of hours to which reference has been made and which undoubtedly makes it more difficult to clear cargo from the quay, or sometimes to bring it to the quay. These are all matters which can

645
be looked at but which in the main must be looked at locally, and sometimes even seasonally.
It is not much good comparing things with what they were before the war. It is no good saying that, bad as they are here, they are worse in Australia and New Zealand. What we have to do is to make them better here than they are now: better to-morrow than they are to-day, and better the day after to-morrow than they are to-morrow. The problem must be tackled, place by place, bit by bit and day by day. It is just as continuous a process as the flow of goods from the factory to the ships and across the seas to their destination. The 1948 Working Party to which reference has been made did a very good job of work. A great many of its recommendations deserve following up to-day. How far effect can be given to them all I do not know; some of them have been adopted, but a great many more have not. They form an admirable basis on which to work, for they are spread over the several ports of the country in which any attempt at improvement could start. It is true that each difficulty solved may well throw up another; but that, after all, is the way progress is achieved. IE we are going to achieve progress, it is no good waiting until we think we can solve all the problems it once. It is only by solving one difficulty and meeting the next that we shall ever know where the true solution lies.
6.28 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I should like to join others of your Lordships who have spoken this evening in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Winster, on initiating this important debate. The noble Lord has gone "down to the sea in ships" all his life, and he well knows the subject. I know, too, of the considerable effort that Lord Winster has put into gathering the facts for the much-to-the-point remarks that he has made this evening. Your Lordships will agree that there is one way, and one way only, out of the immense economic difficulties that face us; and that is through hard work and sterling character. National solvency and a higher standard of living can be obtained only when each of us is producing more goods or rendering more service. This, surely, means that a unit of output, whether of goods or ser-
646
vice, must be achieved with fewer man-hours. My noble friend's case for action is well illustrated by the fact that some fifteen years ago ships spent some 230 days at sea and 120 in port To-day, with all the mechanical devices ashore which have been referred to by previous speakers, cargo ships spend some 170 days at sea and 190 in port—and this despite the development of apparatus for loading and unloading ships that proceeded apace after being speeded up by the process of war. In other words, the time in port has increased by nearly 60 per cent.
As my noble friend Lord Winster asked: What are we doing about it? In the field of design, development and production of labour-saving equipment—about which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, had a lot to say and of which I know something—much has been done. Unfortunately, however, a large amount of this equipment is only in occasional use in the docks, since we have failed to observe and tackle the problem of redundancy of labour. It would surely be better from the economical standpoint, if this is all that happens, not to instal labour-saving devices in the non-expanding industries and to use the material and effort thus saved in making equipment for the expanding industries where it is required and where it can be used with beneficial results. The immense advantage which would be gained by the ready acceptance of these new mechanisms and techniques may be gauged by taking a look at what has happened in the younger industries. For example, in the automobile industry, the time taken to produce an automobile has been reduced from 104 man-weeks in 1910 to six in 195L Therefore, productivity has increased 1,700 per cent. in forty-one years. Similar improvements may be noted in other industries. May I give your Lordships another example, by considering the handling of coal in a power station? Some fifteen years ago, it cost 6½d. to move a ton of coal from the railway wagon into the bunker of the powerhouse. To-day, with wages—very rightly so—many times higher than they were some fifteen years ago, the cost is around a farthing. That shows what has been done by the application of mechanisation. These two examples show that in the newer industries there has been no resistance to the introduction of these new

647
ideas, with considerable advantage to all concerned.
I suggest that when shipowners, dock employers and dock workers agree to handle cargo with the maximum use of mechanisation and, therefore, the minimum of man-power, there can be no doubt that the turn-round of ships—about which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, had a lot to say—will be greatly improved, and immediately. The ships would carry more ton-miles of cargo per year and, as a consequence, cargo costs would be reduced. Secondly, the number of dockers required at the ports would be decreased more rapidly than the tonnage to be handled would be increased. We sometimes fail to remember that we live in an age of power production and that ever more operations are being carried out mechanically. This surely calls for a different approach to many problems, and if the inventive genius of British brains is worth anything—and it is worth a very great deal—those working in certain industries must work themselves out of a job. That is inescapable.
All too often it has been said, and at high level, that there is no fear of this; but this is entirely wrong, and if it were true it would mean that we engineers—particularly we production engineers—were not doing our job at all. Therefore, in non-expanding industries, such as docks, railways and mines, where efficient operation must mean a year by year reduction in man-power, there are two realistic alternatives, which I should like to submit to your Lordships. The first is to continue as at present, to instal a gradually decreasing amount of new equipment, thereby accepting a restriction of output, with an inevitable reduction in the standards of living, or, secondly, to encourage the introduction of new methods, as in the expanding industries, and to welcome the redundant labour into other industries, preferably nearby, where it can be usefully employed.
There can be no doubt at all which of these must be adopted—of course, the second. This calls for a new approach, and I feel sure that when these matters are properly explained to those in the industries concerned, there will be a full-blooded response. I was tremendously impressed with what the noble Viscount,
648
Lord Waverley, said in stressing the fact that, valuable as all these techniques are, unless and until there is a full-blooded human approach to these problems very little good will result. The happiest years of my life were spent working at the bench, and I venture to talk to your Lordships about matters of which I have had a fairly extensive experience. I would say that there are two problems which face our nation to-day and which gravely affect our industry. These problems are psychological and technological. The former has been thought about by a number, but it has never been tackled in a fashion at once complete and compelling; and until this is done we have no chance at all of getting out of the wood. If it had been tackled in such a way there would have been no need for the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, to make his very clear and incisive speech on that aspect of the case.
The technological problem has been, and is being, faced up to daily, and therein there is no problem at all, beyond that of supply, since all can be done with machinery that the circumstances demand. The reason why these techniques and the equipment are not being applied, is because of this psychological bottleneck which stultifies our actions. I feel quite sure that what we wish to hear now is the reply of the noble Lord, the Minister, who is about to tell us what action he has in view. I also feel, referring again to the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on the psychological point, that no one is better able to understand and to apply the human touch than the noble Lord who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government.
6.37 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF TRANSPORT, FUEL AND POWER (LORD LEATHERS): My Lords, I was sorry that, because of illness, the noble Lord, Lord Winster, had to defer this Motion for several weeks. I am glad that he has been able to come here to-day to introduce the Motion, and I thank him very much for the way in which he has done so. I am also very pleased to feel that all the speeches which have been made to-day have been fully helpful and have given us all a greater understanding of this somewhat intricate question.

649
Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I preface my remarks by saying that the subject is one of personal interest to me, because for over fifty years I have been associated with shipping, particularly in the ports. When I say this, I want to add at once that not only is it a personal matter which interests me but it is of much more vital concern to the country as a whole, just as it was in the war, when we had to rely so much on securing a quicker turn-round of our merchant ships to sustain our war effort and, indeed, the country's life. At that time, as your Lordships know, I was Minister of War Transport, and the task was a big one. We had to wait quite a time before we could obtain that assistance from the United States of the ships which they were building at a great rate. But fortunately we were able to struggle through until that help came. I should like, therefore, to make it quite clear at the outset that Her Majesty's Government do recognise this problem as one of immense concern.
So that we do not attach blame unfairly to those whose responsibility it is to perform this work I must first draw attention to a number of factors which have radically altered the position from that which obtained before the war. In the first place, the whole pattern of the country's imports and exports has changed. Coal, which previously formed a large part of our exports, is now regrettably only a comparative trickle. Some of the ports which catered for those large coal exports are not suited for large exports of other goods, so that the vast increase in exports which we have to-day has to be shipped at a limited number of major ports. Secondly, it is general liner cargo and more difficult to handle. Thirdly, the average size of ship has increased and is more fully loaded. Thus, necessarily, more time is spent in port. These are significant facts, and they are not usually observed by the public or by the commentators.
Because of these facts a great increase in export cargo has to be handled at, say, London or Liverpool. Now it is only fair to point out that both these ports suffered very heavy enemy action damage; and while large sums have been expended in repairs and replacements—this has been done to the full permission granted—there is still a large amount of
650
unrepaired damage, which means that congestion in storage arrangements persists. A great number of new ships have been built since the war, but corresponding measures to deal with them effectively have not been taken. For example, bigger ships are being built steadily, but corresponding measures to increase the number of deep-water alongside berths have not been taken. We are immensely hampered by steel shortage and other factors, but nevertheless, I want your Lordships to know that my honourable friend the Minister of Transport and I are paying great attention to see that the ports get that share of scarce materials which is theirs by right in the national interest.
Now a word about mechanical handling. It would be wrong to ignore the great deal that has been done. Individual, difficulties are apt to receive a prominence in the Press which distorts the picture as a whole; but there are many; items to be brought in on the credit side. For example, enormous ore-discharging plants have been planned and built since the war with transporter cranes grabbing up to 10 tons of ore at one time. At one port new grain suction plant resulting in three times quicker discharge has been installed. Mobile cranes, forklift trucks and straddle trucks are coming in increasingly. There are difficulties of short supply and there has been delay in the execution of orders. But above all, as we have heard from nearly every speaker to-day, there is a fear in the minds of the dockers that these new inventions will bring redundancy in their wake.
I must here make the most serious appeal. So long as labour-saving machines and fear of redundancy are linked together in the minds of so many dockers, we shall not get the benefit which we should, and must, get from mechanisation. These fears are exaggerated. History has always shown that the inventions of science, though they may temporarily displace labour, quickly lead to increased prosperity all round. I do appeal to our union leaders to redouble their efforts to get men to accept these so-called "new-fangled gadgets"—but in reality inventions of genius—which so ease the burden of manual work. Before leaving this subject, I must make this serious

651
warning: that if we fail here our competitors in the near Continental ports will not fail to take advantage of us.
I now turn to one particular item which is often overlooked, but which it is quite essential to mention—namely, barges on the River Thames. More than half London's port traffic is handled overside, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, has said—hence the importance of these craft. I noted that one speaker said that we were about 1,000 barges short of what we had before the War. That, in fact, is not true, either as regards the number of barges or as regards the proper focus of the position. It takes no account of the larger size of barges that have been built to replace the old ones. We have in the Thames to-day craft fully equal in tonnage to that which existed before the War, and we can be sure that the barges of to-day are able to perform a much better service, because they are not out of repair for so long. Nearly 400 new barges, mainly of the larger size, have been brought into service for general work on the Thames in the last year. But the building of large numbers of additional barges is not the real answer to the problem. The trouble is that far too many are held for days, and even weeks, full of cargo, instead of being turned round promptly. It is another case of a pipe-line that is absolutely full.
Of course, the difficulties do not finish with the barges. The problem goes much wider, as the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, has pointed out. Many of the difficulties that arise are caused by hold-ups on the wharves and in the warehouses, where the working day is shorter than in the docks. If only we could get the working of the wharves in tune, so far as time is concerned, with the docks, a good deal of the difficulty could be removed. If the wharfingers find that they cannot keep the goods flowing there is congestion, and the whole of this complex of operations is held up. Therefore, I suggest that it is unrealistic to consider only the docks. One must look also at the river wharves and the warehouses—indeed, the problem goes much further still. This is a transport problem in the widest sense, and as soon as you start looking into the subject you find it a matter of immense complexity made up of a variety of items all along the line.
652
I hope that noble Lords appreciate this point fully. The flow of transport is choked and the channel must be cleared. To give one example, cargo receivers could make a real contribution if they took in goods faster and with more regularity. All sides must co-operate to speed up the flow—receivers, transport organisations, port authorities, barge owners and wharfingers, as well as labour. A case recently came to my notice in which a cargo of copra came into the Port of London. It was of some 7,000 tons and it was consigned to one destination—to go to one wharf. It would take something like six weeks to clear the wharf. Then another cargo of copra arrived of 9,000 tons, consigned to the same wharf. Your Lordships can imagine what an accumulation of craft arises in such a case as that. I mention that point in order to show that there is need to regulate the import of cargo.
I turn now to another point—the question of labour relations. I must say that too hard words have been spoken. True, there have been in the past, and still are, irresponsible elements trading on the docker's sense of loyalty to his fellow. This loyalty is well known, but sometimes it outweighs the loyalty owing to the community. It would be wrong to infer from just a few instances, however, serious and damaging as they have been, that the dock labour force as a whole is falling down on its job. One fact which is not commonly realised I must place on record. The total number of dockers now on the roll of the National Dock Labour Board is just over 80,000. Before the war there were about 136,000 dockers—97,000 pretty well regularly employed and 39,000 only partially employed. It shows at any rate that the dockers are not working too badly with that smaller number, and that perhaps there has been benefit from the use of mechanisation. I think your Lordships will agree that these figures indicate a substantial economy in labour, and I hope I have already said enough to indicate that the difficulties which we are now experiencing cannot be traced to labour alone.
References have been made—I think by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham—to the National Dock Labour Board scheme. The main point of difficulty in the scheme is in the administration of discipline. The Leggett Committee directed their principal criticisms to this

653
matter. In particular the Report criticised the dual position of trade union officials. In one capacity they have to act as advocates for their members, in another to sit in judgment on them. The cure suggested for this was that disciplinary cases should be remitted for decision to a joint committee of employers and trade union representatives. This proposal has been referred to both sides of the National Joint Council for the Port Industry, but it did not commend itself to either side. My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour is accordingly having discussions with each side to see whether a practical and acceptable alternative to the proposal made by the Leggett Committee can be found. I will say no more now because we must await the outcome of those talks together. The successful settlement of this point is vital to the smooth working of the Dock Labour scheme.
I hope that I have already said enough to convince your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government mean business. But one more thing I must announce. Having reviewed the Situation as we found it on taking office, we feel that this problem needs the close and expert attention of a small high-powered body to be entitled the Ports Efficiency Committee, which will act as a link between the Government and all the numerous other interests concerned. The terms of reference will be—
"To investigate the working of the ports of the United Kingdom, and in particular the ports of London and Liverpool, and to secure the co-operation of all the interests concerned including shipping and inland transport authorities in ensuring a quicker flow through the ports of inward and outward cargo; and to report from time to time."
That phrase "to report from time to time" is to ensure that this Committee will get into action rapidly, rather than wait until they reach the end of what may be a longish journey before they later report. We want them to report ad hoc, so that, through the channels of the existing machinery round the docks, such as the Consultative Panels, we need lose no time in getting put into effect that which has been recommended by the Committee and not wait till the end of their journey.
The terms of reference are designed, as I say, to secure early results and I must emphasise that they do not stop at the ports. They go wider and cover inland transport, too—and that in my view is
654
quite essential. I hope shortly to be able to announce the composition of the Committee. Port authorities, shipping and inland transport interests, as well as labour, will be represented, under an independent chairman. I have reason to believe that the membership will be such as to command widespread confidence and such that broad ranging views and the decisions which the situation cries out for will be taken. I am sure that when this Committee gets to work it will speedily receive that co-operation for which the terms of reference call. I have been very much encouraged this afternoon to hear from my noble friend Lord Waverley that we can rely upon the Dock and Harbour Authorities Association for their full support immediately we get to work.
Moreover, it is heartening to learn of the measures such as we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, which the representative bodies of British industry, manufacturers and shipowners are themselves taking, on their own initiative, to tackle this black spot in our commercial arrangements. By all these steps, I trust that we shall soon establish the correct remedies and act upon them. In particular, I hope that all concerned will assist the Committee in providing the members with whatever information they want, so that they can get a true and full picture. The measurement of turn-round is a very difficult business for there are so many factors that can influence the time that a vessel spends in unloading and loading. But it is regrettable that no general statistics on cargo handling times are readily available. I hear that a serious attempt is now being undertaken by the representative associations of the port authorities and by the General Council of British Shipping to produce a form of statistical return which will reveal trends in cargo handling performances. I hope very much that the Committee will soon have the benefit of these inquiries. I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, that all the figures that they are able to provide on this line will be regarded with great care and will not be in any way misused.
I think I have said enough this evening to convince your Lordships of the concern with which Her Majesty's Government view the present position and their absolute determination to find successful solutions to the many and complicated problems arising out of the handling of

655
cargo in our ports. I have tried to give a fair account of the situation as it is to-day I should be wrong to say that on the whole our ports are not working well, but with the full co-operation of all the interests more must be accomplished—and quickly. If that happens, then this debate will have served its purpose.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, while thanking the noble Lord for his extremely interesting and informative speech, may I ask him one question? Will the terms of reference to the Committee which he has indicated this afternoon include a survey or an inquiry into the limitations imposed by the Customs and Excise people on the unloading of certain vessels at certain wharves on the River Thames?
LORD LEATHERS: I will certainly take note of that point and ensure that that is well looked into and the remedy made.
LORD BURDEN: Thank you.
6.58 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, the speeches made in this debate have been of such a nature as to leave me very little to say at this juncture. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, spoke about these troubles in the docks being worldwide. The possibility of trouble and disorganisation in the docks and harbours of the world is obviously a very tempting prospect indeed for the Communist, and we may be quite sure that he makes it his business to foment trouble wherever trouble may appear in any of the docks of the world. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, spoke about causes elsewhere than in the docks which cause delay. I am aware of them. Perhaps I confined my remarks too strictly to the words of the Motion—cargo handling in the docks. But, on the whole, the work of the receiving and handling agencies ashore does not synchronise well with the work in the docks which is subject to the delays of the seasons and the weather and to the general hazards of the sea. I may perhaps be allowed to point out that that has always been so. Consequently, if we are comparing pre-war times with postwar times, that is a factor on both sides
656
of the equation, and one which can perhaps be omitted.
Mention was made of deep-water berths. It may not be the case that there is a shortage in the Port of London but, taking the ports of the country generally, the improvements in the design of ships, their greater length and their greater draught certainly are, speaking broadly, causing a shortage of deep-water berths. As regards dry docks, the noble Viscount did not mention that these enormous tankers which are coming along will create quite a problem of their own in that respect. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, I thought, was a little hard on the Dock Labour Board. Their mandate is rather inadequate. In any case the Dock Labour Board are the buffer between the employers and the employed. Like buffers all the world over, they get all the jars and all the bumps. I think we are handicapped by the system of discipline which they have to impose. It is a system which depends upon forms and written explanations. A man of the rather full-blooded character of the docker does not like having to deal with these matters by forms and written explanations. But there is no way in which the smallest infraction of discipline can be dealt with on the spot; it has to go through this cumbrous written procedure.
I noticed that Lord Teynham brought in the bulk buying argument. Perhaps he will allow me to say that that argument appeared during the lifetime of the last Government. Now that the present Government have decided to continue the system of bulk buying, I should not be surprised if that argument goes on the shelf in these matters. My noble friend Lord Ammon said that the trouble in Australia has a reflex action here at home. But the same trouble is found in the short sea trade. I read of an examination of seventy-four voyages to Continental ports where the delay in the time spent in harbour on this side of the water was twice what it was in Continental ports. So the trouble exists in both the deep sea and short sea trade. To some extent, I can deal with Lord Runciman's remarks in the same way as those of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. I agree that dry docking, ship repairing and ship designing are vital factors in this matter; but of course, as I have already said, I was rather concentrating on the side of delay in the docks.

657
I think it is perhaps true to say that some of the early wage increases were rather easily granted because of the possibility of recouping the expenditure in freights. In my view, we have now reached the point where it may well be said that, to some extent, further wage increases ought to be related to output. In regard to output, may I just say that in getting together what I wanted to say to-day I found great difficulty in obtaining statistics in regard to gang output, and so on? I refrained from quoting any figures because I was not entirely satisfied about the certainty of the statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, was kind enough to say that I am someone who has gone "down to the sea in ships." I did not go "down to the sea in ships" in the last war. Their Lordships decided to give my head a rest and to give my feet a job. I spent many months tramping round London docks, and perhaps I may tell the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that it was then that I first began to have my eyes opened to some of these problems and to take an interest in them.
May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, for what he was kind enough to say about myself and about my introduction of this Motion? I agree that changes in the type of exports have led to a great centralisation of shipping at certain points, with consequent difficulties arising. As regards war damage, I know that that is a very serious matter, but there is one good side to it—namely, that it gives us a chance to modernise our ports when we are repairing our war damage. In the long run we may find, as did many Continental ports, that the enemy did a certain amount of good in knocking our docks about. I am perfectly certain that the appeal which the noble Lord, Lord
658
Leathers, made to trade union leaders to co-operate in this matter will not fall upon deaf ears. Mr. Arthur Deakin, for one, has already given proof of how much he has that matter at heart.
My Lords, once or twice I was slightly rebuked for asking for speed. I was not seriously rebuked, but there seemed to be an idea that perhaps there is something to be said for going slowly, and that we shall get there in the end. However, I was immensely reassured by Lord Leathers' announcement of the setting up of this Port Efficiency Committee. I think I should have some feeling of satisfaction in having got what I wanted when I put down this Motion, because it was not really in my mind to have an entirely fresh inquiry. I had hoped that so much information was available already, in Reports and White Papers, that the noble Lord would review it and would then be able to announce some action—as, indeed, he has to-day. Therefore, while thanking all noble Lords for the part they have taken in this debate, I feel that my object has been so largely achieved that I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AGRICULTURE (FERTILISERS) BILL
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
The Earl Grey—Took the Oath.
House adjourned at six minutes past seven o'clock.