Sitting of 9 July 1953

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE

    Smallholdings
    Mr. Slaterasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give consideration to amending the regulations which at present provide only for a husband to be the tenant of full-time smallholdings, so as to allow the wife to take over the tenancy at his decease.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Sir Thomas Dugdale): I have already amended the original Regulations, and the widow of a deceased smallholder may now be given preference as the new tenant.
    Mr. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am very grateful to him for the new provisions which he has introduced, because undue hardship has been caused by the operation of the old regulations?
    Mr. Slaterasked the Minister of Agriculture how many authorities, in response to his circular letter of 1952, have written to him for approval to carry on with part-time holdings on land of good quality which were a part of their social structure and sought after by farm workers; to which of the authorities he has given his consent; and to which he has given a refusal.
    Sir T. Dugdale: Four authorities have written asking my agreement to the retention of particular part-time holdings.
    1458
    I have agreed to all these proposals, in one case provisionally.
    Mr. Slater: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how many of the schemes were in respect of Durham County and the amount of money involved?
    Sir T. Dugdale: No, Sir, I cannot give particulars today. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question. Durham was not one of the counties which asked for agreement.
    Mr. Bartley: In view of the very large waiting lists of applicants for small-holdings in Durham County, can something extraordinary be done to acquire land to satisfy the demand?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I am watching the position all the time. That is a different question from the one on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Slaterasked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent the creation of new smallholdings has taken place since March 1952; what extensions have been carried out to existing holdings from March, 1952, to March, 1953; how many schemes costing more than £250 for improvements have been submitted to him for his approval; what was the amount of money involved; and what expenditure he has sanctioned.
    Sir T. Dugdale: I shall not know exactly how many smallholdings were created or increased in size during the year 1952–53 until I have received reports from authorities about the progress of their smallholdings schemes during that period. In the year, however, I approved proposals for the creation of 42 new smallholdings and for the addition of land to 35 existing holdings. Two hundred and thirty-nine schemes for improvements costing more than £250 were submitted for my approval during the year at a total estimated cost of £440,000. I have approved 212 of these schemes, which are estimated to cost £350,000.
    Mr. Slater: Can the Minister state how many, if any, applications were made from Durham County for improvements and extensions costing more than £250?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Not without notice.
    Mr. G. Brown: In view of the rate at which we are losing men from the land and the extent to which this might

    1459
    prove to be a method of holding them, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the figures are ludicrously small? Will he try to get more money for the purpose?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Considering all the factors involved, progress is good. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, where we get a good smallholdings estate, it is the most satisfactory way to keep the best type of young man on the land.
    Mr. Bartley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the improvements referred to by my hon. Friend include additional equipment such as piggeries and poultry houses? Is he aware that some tenants of holdings, especially in Durham, have the utmost difficulty in getting favourable consideration given to applications for such equipment?
    Sir T. Dugdale: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "Yes, Sir." As to the second part, I must ask the hon. Member to put down a specific Question about Durham County.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Compensation)
    Sir L. Ropnerasked the Minister of Agriculture the total amount paid in 1952 for compensation for stock slaughtered because of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in England.
    Sir T. Dugdale: One million, seven hundred and twenty-one thousand, eight hundred and seventy-one pounds.
    Sir L. Ropner: Can my right hon. Friend say how that compares with the previous year?
    Sir T. Dugdale: The figure for 1952 was very high indeed. I have given the House the English figure for 1952. The figure for 1951 was £376,874. Up to 3rd July this year the figure is £57,000.
    Mr. Brown: Could the Minister say whether the committee of inquiry is nearing the end of its labours, as it is getting rather belated?
    Sir T. Dugdale: It has almost finished taking evidence and will be visiting the Argentine, Norway and Sweden very shortly. Its report is expected to be ready by the end of the year.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much we are spending on research into foot-and-mouth disease?
    Sir T. Dugdale: That is a different question altogether.

    Adventurers Fen, Burwell
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Agriculture why he proposes to hand back to the National Trust land in Adventurers Fen, in Burwell and Swaffham, in view of their expressed intention to flood it; how much public money has been spent by the agricultural executive committee; and if he will make a statement on the particulars which have been sent to him.
    Sir T. Dugdale: Adventurers Fen was derequisitioned last year, in accordance with the recommendations in Section VII of the report of the Agricultural Land Commission. This land formed part of a larger area of requisitioned land at Swaffham Prior and Burwell Fens and it is not possible to allocate expenditure by the County Agricultural Executive Committee between different parts of the total area. I am satisfied, however, that the crops obtained during the period of requisition justified the cost.
    Sir W. Smithers: How does the Minister justify, under Section 84, (1, a and b) of the Agriculture Act, 1947, making derelict good agricultural land by flooding?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I think the hon. Member has a Question on that Section later on, but as far as this land is concerned it is curious that he should object to my returning to the National Trust land which was their property previously.
    Mr. G. Brown: But would it not be better to use the provisions of the Act to acquire this land and keep it in food production.
    Mr. Bullard: Can my right hon. Friend say how much land is involved in this proposal to re-flood land? While we want to keep as much land in the Fens as possible in cultivation, will he also bear in mind the naturalist side of this problem, because the research work done at Wicken and Burwell is enormously important?
    Sir T. Dugdale: The National Trust land covers about 280 acres and only 120 acres of the poorest and wettest land of that area will be flooded.

    Veterinary Surgeons
    Commander Scott-Millerasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of veterinary officers and veterinary assistants at present employed by his Department; and how these figures compare with those of the last three years.
    Sir T. Dugdale: As the comparison with the last three years involves a table

    —

    Veterinary officers (field staff)

    Veterinary officers (employed on research or veterinary investigation work)

    Temporary veterinary inspectors

    Local veterinary inspectors

    1st July, 1953

    …

    369

    88

    45

    1,810

    1st July, 1952

    …

    360

    78

    67

    1,695

    1st July, 1951

    …

    342

    73

    6

    1,576

    1st July, 1950

    …

    330

    67

    3

    1,465

    NOTE:

    (i) Temporary Veterinary Inspectors are employed on foot-and-mouth, fowl pest and tuberculin testing duties on a daily fee-paid basis.

    (ii) Local Veterinary Inspectors are veterinary surgeons in private practice who are employed on a fee basis to carry out work on behalf of the Ministry.

    Commander Scott-Millerasked the Minister of Agriculture the present number of veterinary surgeons and practitioners available to the agricultural industry; and how these figures compare with those of the last three years.
    Sir T. Dugdale: I am informed by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons that there are 5,485 names on the register of Veterinary Surgeons. Of these, about 2,700 are in private veterinary practice in Great Britain, but not all are likely to be engaged exclusively on agricultural work. This compares with a figure of about 2,500 in 1950.
    In addition there are about 300 veterinary practitioners in a supplementary register maintained by the Royal College. The number has not altered significantly over the past three years. About 200 are in private practice, but some of these may be engaged on work outside agriculture.
    Commander Scott-Miller: In view of the rapidly expanding agricultural industry
    of figures, I will, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Commander Scott-Miller: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, might I ask him whether he is satisfied that he can meet the ever-increasing demand from the agricultural industry for veterinary services?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir, I think that the position is satisfactory and that we can meet the demands as they arise.
    Following is the information:
    and the new demands for veterinary surgeons and practitioners arising all the time, could my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied with the general rate of increase of members of the veterinary service?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. As I said in answer to a previous Question, I keep this point very much under review the whole time. I am satisfied that the position is satisfactory. There are times when we get such a big increase of work in the eradication of tuberculosis that in certain areas we may be temporarily short, but the general position is satisfactory.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the Minister satisfied that the number of students in the various agricultural colleges and universities is sufficient to meet the demand of an extended agricultural industry in the future?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I have never had any contrary advice tendered to me.

    Farm Speculation (Tenant Protection)
    Lieut.-Commander Baldockasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will introduce legislation to protect agricultural tenants against harassing actions by companies who attempt to obtain vacant possession of farms that they have bought with the object of resale at a profit, since this kind of action can only result in a reduction in the country's food supplies.
    Sir T. Dugdale: I shall certainly be prepared to consider this the next time there is legislation to amend the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948.
    Lieut.-Commander Baldock: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask if his attention has been drawn to a particularly bad case, that of Mr. Clarke, of Theddingworth, who has been the victim of litigation, obstruction and of being spied on through field glasses?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, I have had my attention drawn to this particular case and I am watching developments.

    Boundary Adjustments
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Agriculture why he effects boundary adjustments of agricultural land on the recommendation of the Land Commission under Section 84 (1) (a) and (b) of the 1947 Act when Section 87 provides for boundary adjustments.
    Sir T. Dugdale: Section 84 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, enables me, after inquiry by the Agricultural Land Commission, to acquire agricultural land and to provide and maintain the fixed equipment that may be necessary to ensure full and efficient agricultural production. Any boundary adjustments would be incidental to this main purpose. This Section, therefore, enables me to deal with cases where mere boundary adjustments, such as might be provided by a scheme under Section 87 of the same Act, would provide no solution.
    Sir W. Smithers: May we take it that the Minister uses whatever Section suits him best to avoid an appeal?
    Sir T. Dugdale: No, Sir, I use whatever Section is most appropriate in the particular circumstances.

    Swedish Landrace Pigs
    Mr. G. Brownasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will arrange for adequate representation of the British Landrace Pig Society on the purchasing commission which is to carry out the import of Landrace pigs from Sweden.
    Sir T. Dugdale: The purchasing commission appointed by the National Pig Breeders' Association includes a representative nominated by the Council of the British Landrace Society.
    Mr. Brown: Does the Minister not think it rather queer that the National Pig Breeders' Association, which has been opposing this importation all along, and did so even in its statement accepting the consignment, should be used to do it? Secondly, was not the British Landrace Pig Society asked not to appoint a member of the purchasing commission but to arrange for some one to go along in an advisory capacity?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I think the Landrace Society have got the position wrong. As I have stated in my answer, the position is that their representative is a member of the purchasing commission, together with three other members from N.P.B.A. In regard to the first part of the supplementary question, there is bound to be difficulty in dealing with this problem, but by and large I consider that the National Pig Breeders' Association are responsible, in the main, for the breeding of pigs in this country. At the end of the day—although I expect criticism from all quarters whatever method is adopted—this is the best way to get the best results in the interests of pig breeders as a whole.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Can my right hon. Friend explain how these pigs are to be sold, and to whom, when they have been imported?
    Sir T. Dugdale: That is another question, but I will say at once they are to be sold by public auction under the auspices of the National Pig Breeders' Association.
    Mr. Brown: In view of the clear difference between the views of the Landrace Society and of the Minister, would he be willing to see the various parties before importation and so perhaps remove the difficulties before rather than afterwards?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir, I am prepared to see any body at any time, but the commission leaves this country today to go to Sweden to go into the whole question.
    Sir R. Boothby: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that some of these pigs come to Aberdeen, and does he not think it a very good thing that they are being imported into this country?
    Sir T. Dugdale: That is a different question.
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is satisfied that the Danish Landrace pig which is to be imported under licence, produces better bacon than any of the English breeds.
    Sir T. Dugdale: No, Sir. But I think it right to permit a limited importation, which will be of Swedish Landrace pigs, so that the merits of this breed as regards quality and cost of production can be tested under our conditions.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend not aware that British agriculture has been recognised as the stud farm of the world? Surely he is not suggesting that our breeds of pigs are inferior to those in Scandinavia.
    Sir R. Boothby: Certainly he is.
    Sir T. Dugdale: I said at the beginning, "No, Sir." This breed of pigs must have a fair chance of developing.

    Armed Forces (Harvest Leave)
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Agriculture how many agricultural executive committees have made representations to him regarding harvest leave for members of the Armed Forces.
    Sir T. Dugdale: None, Sir.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: May we take it, therefore, that my right hon. Friend is satisfied that agricultural leave will be granted to enable help to be given with the harvest where it will be badly needed?
    Sir T. Dugdale: That is a matter directly between the individual concerned and the Service Department.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied, in the interests of
    1466
    his own Department, that the matter is being properly conducted?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I have had no application from any county committees on this point.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does the Minister believe that in an important matter such as this he should leave the final decision to those in charge in the Forces?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I am answering the Question on the Order Paper, the answer to which is, "None, Sir." I am satisfied from the general point of view that the harvest will be brought in.

    Colorado Beetle
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the discovery on the Continent of a new variety of Colorado Beetle, black instead of striped; and whether he will give instructions for a careful watch to be kept for these insects, which might be mistaken for common black beetles.
    Sir T. Dugdale: The beetles said to be a black variety of the Colorado Beetle were reported as having been found by peasants in Lower Austria. Further inquiries are being made. I understand that the beetles are probably not Colorado Beetles, but a closely allied species of which several are known and which are harmless to potatoes.

    Irish Cattle (Warbles)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are taken to dress Irish cattle infested with warbles on arrival at British ports.
    Sir T. Dugdale: No steps are taken to treat Irish cattle on arrival at British ports since an Order requiring the compulsory dressing of infested cattle is in operation in Northern Ireland and infested cattle coming from the Irish Republic are dressed at the port of embarkation. Moreover, under the Warble Fly Order, 1948, any infested cattle coming into the ownership of a person during the dressing season must be dressed within seven days.
    Mr. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hundreds of cattle that have come in this summer from the Irish Republic have been full of warble grubs and have had to have four dressings in

    1467
    this country? Will he please see that the Irish Republic do their part of this job?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I will look into the point raised by my hon. Friend.

    Rural Electrification (Capital Expenditure)
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will ascertain from the British Electricity Authority how much of the increased capital expenditure approved for rural electrification will be allocated to the Eastern Electricity Board; and what proportion of this sum is allocated to the Essex sub-area.
    Sir T. Dugdale: The allocation of the increased capital expenditure among the area boards is entirely a matter for the British Electricity Authority and the area boards, and I have no power to require them to provide the information requested.
    Mr. G. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman not clearly aware that unless steps are taken to get this additional capital investment allocated to the rural boards, the whole point of the exercise will be lost? Will he not, at any rate, get into touch with his right hon. Friend and get some powers to do it?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I am in touch all the time with my right hon. Friend. I want to make it abundantly clear that the position is as set out in answer to the Question. If there are any points of detail on which the right hon. Member wants information, he must put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.
    Mr. G. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is the Minister of Agriculture.
    Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, but I am not the Minister of Fuel and Power.
    Mr. Driberg: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not transfer the Question?

    Swine Fever
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of outbreaks of swine fever in the present epidemic; and how far the figures show that it is now on the decline.
    Sir T. Dugdale: There have been 1,887 outbreaks of swine fever since 1st December, 1952. The worst months were April and May, with over 450 outbreaks in each. I am glad to say that outbreaks have since declined to 263 in June and 51 up to 8th July.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this information will be appreciated, not only by the farmers, but by the people as a whole?
    Mr. Bartley: Can the Minister tell the House of any real progress that has been made by veterinary surgeons or research workers towards discovering a cure for these epidemics of swine fever?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Investigation is definitely in progress but we have had a bad series of outbreaks this year, and we are very disturbed about it.
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will continue the licensing of the movement of pigs from auction markets.
    Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. I have no intention at present of withdrawing the licensing provisions of the Regulation of Movement of Swine Order, 1950, which are an essential feature of our measures to control swine fever.
    Mr. Crouch: Will my right hon. Friend maintain this restriction, because there is a strong feeling that the outbreak of swine fever was started as a result of dealers taking pigs from market to market instead of retaining them on licence for 28 days after they had been to market?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I could not hear my hon. Friend's supplementary Question very well, but the gist of my answer is that we are keeping an eye on the position.
    Mr. G. Brown: What the hon. Member is really asking is whether "Set the swine free" would not be a good political slogan. What does the Minister think?

    Threshed Peas (Marketing Scheme)
    Mr. Bullardasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement about progress with the consideration of a marketing scheme for homegrown threshed peas which has been before his Department for a long time.
    Sir T. Dugdale: No Sir. This scheme is still under consideration by the Government.
    Mr. Billiard: Is not the time taken for the consideration of this scheme rather long, especially in view of the fact that the scheme has to have the approval of the House and must be submitted to a poll of the producers, and the preliminaries are rather protracted?
    Sir T. Dugdale: The preliminaries have taken a considerable time, but a number of important and difficult questions dealing with this scheme have to be resolved.
    Mr. G. Brown: In view of the rough handling that the scheme has had at the inquiry and elsewhere, will the Minister make quite certain (a) that it is a marketing scheme if it comes forward and (b) that it is really worth putting forward?
    Sir T. Dugdale: The right hon. Member's remarks will be taken note of.

    Nationalisation (Government Policy)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that his use of the Agricultural Marketing Acts and other Acts is leading the way to the nationalisation of the farming industry; and if he will make a statement on his future policy in this regard.
    Sir T. Dugdale: No, Sir. On the contrary, the Government are moving steadily towards a freer agricultural economy, as is shown by the decontrol of eggs and the forthcoming decontrol of cereals and feedingstuffs.
    Sir W. Smithers: Whatever the Minister says, does he not realise that in fact he is operating the Socialist policy of land nationalisation, that farmers are being dispossessed without the right of appeal to an ordinary traditional court of English law on points of fact and merit, and would he, as a Conservative Minister, stop doing these things?
    Sir T. Dugdale: That has nothing whatever to do with the Marketing Acts. It may be of interest to my hon. Friend to know that any marketing scheme, before it becomes the law of the land, must first come to this House and then be agreed to by a large majority of the producers themselves.
    Mr. G. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that anxiety by the farmers about setting the industry free is the biggest conclusive proof that he is not operating Socialist policy?

  COASTAL DEFENCES
  Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Agriculture if he has considered the letters from residents of Burnham-on-Crouch, forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Maldon, expressing concern about the state of the sea defences at Burnham and objecting to the payment of the river board rate and its inequitable incidence; and if he will make a statement.
  Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir, and I shall be writing to the hon. Member in a few days. As I have already announced to the House, improvements are contemplated in the Burnham-on-Crouch area.
  The question of drainage rates which are levied on properties in areas avoiding danger or deriving benefits from drainage operations is a difficult one. It is closely connected so far as the coastal areas are concerned with the deliberations of the Waverley Committee, and I cannot anticipate their recommendations.
  Mr. Driberg: Would the Minister at least draw the attention of the Committee to the unhappy situation in places such as this where people living on one side of a street have to pay this special rate while people on the other side do not have to do so, and those who have to pay the most are those who have suffered most in the floods?
  Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, I appreciate these difficulties and the mere fact that the Question has been asked in this House will draw the attention of the Committee to the difficult points.
  Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement concerning the progress of work on the restoration and strengthening of flood and sea defences, with special reference to Canvey Island.
  Brigadier Medlicottasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will now make a statement as to the progress of work on the strengthening of coastal defences, particularly along the coast of Norfolk; and whether all the emergency work

  1471
  considered necessary will have been completed before the advent of the heavy seas likely in the autumn.
  Sir T. Dugdale: In view of the considerable progress that has been achieved to date, I feel that I can say with confidence that the immediate task will be achieved and that restoration to pre-flood standard will be substantially completed by the 30th September. By that time improvement works designed to withstand a tide as severe as that which occurred on the 31st January will be very well advanced in all important areas including Canvey Island and the Norfolk coast to which my hon. Friends particularly refer.
  Mr. Braine: Does that answer not indicate that my right hon. Friend was right in fixing an arbitrary date for the completion of the work by the river boards?
  Mr. G. Brown: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's answer also indicate that the work which will not be done by that date and which will not, therefore, attract the 100 per cent. grant, will be something very unfortunate for Canvey Island and other places?
  Sir T. Dugdale: I think not.
  Brigadier Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the speed with which the problem as a whole has been tackled reflects great credit on all concerned and will bring great reassurance to the people living in the afflicted areas?
  Mr. Driberg: Is the Minister aware that the people of Burnham-on-Crouch are not yet aware of the speed with which the problem has been tackled? When the right hon. Gentleman refers to "all important areas," does he include that residential area? Although, of course, everybody knows that the problem at Canvey was very much bigger, nevertheless, there are people living at Burnham-on-Crouch.
  Sir T. Dugdale: My answer refers to the whole coastline.
  Mr. Awbery: As a large number of areas have weak coastal defences and are subject to coast erosion, will the Minister make a survey of the whole coast with a view to getting something done, not only at one spot, but in all areas?
  Sir T. Dugdale: The answer indicates that we are getting on very well. We are now at 9th July. We have another few weeks before the end of September, and we anticipate that by that date we shall have the position that I have indicated.

  CREEKS, CANVEY ISLAND
  Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet approved the Essex River Board's proposal to dam Tewkes Creek and Small Gains Creek at Canvey Island.
  Sir T. Dugdale: Formal approval of the proposal is being sent to the river board to-day.
  Mr. Braine: May I thank my right hon. Friend for this most welcome news, and at the same time take the opportunity on behalf of my constituents of thanking him for the expeditious and sympathetic way in which he has handled this problem?

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Motoring Offences (Police Instructions)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent young constables are sent out with instructions to bring in trivial motoring offenders for the purpose of gaining experience in police courts; and whether this practice has the approval of his Department and the Inspectorate of Constabulary.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): No such instructions are in force in the Metropolitan Police, and so far as my right hon. and learned Friend is aware no such practice exists in any of the county and borough police forces of England and Wales.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware that in a northern county to my knowledge these instructions are given to young constables—they are given five minor points of trouble to look for in parked cars such as no waterproof licence cover? Does he not think it is desirable, from the point of view of establishing the

    1473
    right relationship between the police and the motorist, to discourage these practices?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am not aware of that. If my hon. Friend will send particulars I will certainly have them looked into.

    Gaming Prosecutions (Workmen's Clubs)
    Mr. Norman Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pending an amendment of the Gaming Houses Act, 1854, he will advise chief constables not to proceed against workmen's clubs in which a stipulated proportion of the proceeds of the game of house is applied to charitable objects.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is not within my right hon. and learned Friend's province to give advice as to the particular circumstances in which proceedings should or should not be taken. The decision in each case must be taken by the responsible chief officer of police.
    Mr. Smith: Is it within the province of the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and learned Friend to circulate to every chief constable a telescope and a blind eye?

    Mock Auctions
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will inquire into the methods being practised by an increasing number of mock auction businesses, with a view to considering legislation to protect the public and traders against this form of trading.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My right hon. and learned Friend has recently agreed to a request from the National Chamber of Trade to send a deputation to the Home Office to discuss this matter.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a tremendous increase in this type of business and, despite the clever technique involved, it is in the main nothing less than bare-faced robbery?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As the hon. Member has given notice that he intends to raise the matter on the Adjournment tomorrow, I think it might be more appropriate to discuss it then.

    A.F.S. and CD. (Sick Pay Scheme)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will announce the result of his consultations with local authority associations about additional disablement benefits for members of the Civil Defence Service and the Auxiliary Fire Service.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As my right hon. and learned Friend said in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend, the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) on 25th June, he will make a statement as soon as he has received and considered the comments of the local authority associations on the proposed scheme.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is there not a clear case for some additional compensation where, as in the case of a fireman now in a mental home, to which I have drawn the attention of the hon. Gentleman on more than one occasion, it would be desirable both on the grounds of humanity as well as recruiting for this essential service that additional compensation should be forthcoming?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As my right hon. and learned Friend said on 25th June, a scheme has been prepared. It went to the local authority associations on 17th June and we are now awaiting their reply.

    Wrongful Imprisonment (Ex Gratia Payments)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what ex gratia payments he has made during the past year to persons wrongly imprisoned.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Ex gratia payments are made from time to time for a variety of reasons but during the period in question there has been no case in which any payment was made in respect of wrongful imprisonment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Why is the Home Secretary so mean and heartless in a case of this kind? Does the hon. Gentleman recall the case of Penfold, who was three weeks in Brixton and was given £5 from the magistrate's poor box, and the eighteen-years-old girl of St. Austell who was imprisoned for three weeks and

    1475
    had a small contribution towards the cost of her appeal? Will he give the same kind of treatment to the dustman in Warwickshire, whose case I hope is now being sympathetically considered?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to raise particular cases, I hope he will put down a Question, or write to my right hon. and learned Friend or to me.

    Flood Victims (Unopened Gifts)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department at which depots mailbags and sacks containing gifts intended for flood victims are still unopened; and what is the number still to be opened.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mailbags, sacks and parcels containing gifts for flood victims still remain unopened; what attempts have been made, by public appeal or otherwise, to get additional voluntary labour for this task; and when he expects that all the parcels will have been opened and the gifts distributed.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My right hon. and learned Friend is informed by the Women's Voluntary Services that no mailbags remain unopened and that it is estimated that 85 per cent. of the packages received have been unpacked and dealt with. The number of garments already unpacked, sorted and graded is approximately 10 million. Distribution is still continuing and a generous issue of winter clothing is planned. It is not possible to say when all the clothing will have been disposed of.
    Mr. Dodds: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Government of the day have some responsibility to the millions who were so good as to send these parcels, and that the parcels should have been opened before now? On his own statement 15 per cent. are still unopened. Does he not think that is wrong when all that is required is an application to other authorities to help the W.V.S., who do not seem able to do the job fast enough?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Having regard to the very large number of parcels involved, I think that the hon. Member is less than
    1476
    generous to the magnificent work of the Women's Voluntary Services.
    Mr. Driberg: While everyone appreciates the good work of the W.V.S., does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that five months taken in unpacking parcels is a very speedy job, even though there are a large number of articles? Could he not call in some other agencies to assist because, on the percentage he quoted, it seems that a million garments are still undistributed?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not think the hon. Member realised that I said that all the mailbags had been opened. It is only 15 per cent. of the packages which remain unpacked. The number is very large and, as I told the House last week, no damage is being done to the garments not yet unpacked.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that various other organisations are anxious to help in this work? Why should they be kept out and why should the work only be given to the W.V.S., who have been on it for five months?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I was not aware that other offers of help had been made. If the hon. Member will communicate with me I will look into the matter.
    Mr. Assheton: Is not my hon. Friend of the opinion that many hon. Members in this House do not know how big a million is?
    Mr. Driberg: Would the hon. Gentleman please answer the middle part of my Question 36:
    "what attempts have been made, by public appeal or otherwise, to get additional voluntary labour …"
    What is the point of saying that these garments are not suffering any damage? Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that they were needed four or five months ago?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think I am right in saying that the total of garments is in excess of the immediate needs. As I have indicated in my answer, it is a question of making garments available for the coming winter. As to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, the Chairman of the W.V.S. has today sent a personal letter to all W.V.S. regions asking for a big effort to dispose of these gifts.

    Traffic Congestion, London (Police Manpower)
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the shortage of police necessary for enforcing more stringent parking regulations, restricts the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis from encouraging or participating in any bold measures for the removal of congestion from London streets.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Although the Metropolitan police are undoubtedly handicapped by the existing manpower shortages in dealing as comprehensively as the Commissioner of Police would wish with the various causes of traffic congestion in London I am assured that the Commissioner would not be deterred for this reason from encouraging or participating in any scheme which he thought likely to assist in the removal of congestion from the London streets.

    Condemned Prisoner (Communications)
    Mr. Marloweasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the prisoner Christie now under sentence of death has been allowed, since his conviction, to communicate with representatives of any newspaper or with any persons other than officials and his legal advisers.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The prisoner Christie has not been allowed since his conviction to communicate with newspaper representatives and until yesterday had had no visits except from his legal advisers. He has written only one letter, which was not in any way concerned with publicity.
    Mr. Marlowe: Is my hon. Friend aware that on Wednesday of last week the "News Chronicle" published a purported statement, or a confession, which they said had been made by Christie—to a prison official, they said? Without trespassing on the inquiry now going on, may I ask if my hon. Friend has any reason to suppose that Christie has had any communication with the Press, or that such a statement as was made by the "News Chronicle" could be well-founded?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The answer I have given is the truth and the whole
    1478
    truth in this connection. Although I am aware of the statement to which my hon. and learned Friend refers, I am not in a position to speculate on how it came about.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last Sunday the "Sunday Pictorial" published a long article which was advertised as being the first of a series of articles purporting to be the personal confessions of Christie, and that the paper has gone so far as to publish a facsimile copy of his handwriting purporting to prove that these are genuine and authentic articles? Will the hon. Gentleman say now, or if he is unable to say now will he inquire, on what terms this newspaper has obtained possession of these alleged confessions; because it is a serious matter in the opinion of many hon. Members of this House that a newspaper should interfere with the course of justice whether by paying for the defence on conditions, or in any other way?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I can only repeat what I have already said. The prisoner Christie has had no visits, except from his legal advisers, since the date of his conviction.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: Can my hon. Friend say whether it would be possible for legal advisers to act as intermediaries for the Press?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My hon. Friend must form his own opinion on that matter.

    Convicted Murderers (Press Articles)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities are given to persons convicted of murder to write articles for the Press.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: None, Sir.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not the Minister think that some reconsideration should be given to all these arrangements? Does not he think that this arrangement between the legal profession and the Press for the exploitation of murder has gone to the extent of constituting an offence against social morality? Does not he think that this regular exhibition, this exploitation of murder, has made a section of the British Press earn the reputation of being the worst Press in the world, and has not the time come when there should be an investigation?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I can only say that no facilities are provided and that the implications contained in the supplementary question of the hon. Member are not a matter for me.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (REPORT)
  Brigadier Medlicottasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now state when he anticipates receiving the report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment.
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment was appointed; when he estimates that its report will be made; and when it will be available to the House.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The Royal Commission was appointed in May, 1949. As I stated in reply to Questions on 2nd July, my right hon. and learned Friend is informed that he may expect to receive the report of the Commission before the end of this month, and it will be presented to Parliament and published as soon as possible thereafter.

  COST OF LIVING (POTATO PRICES)
  Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Labour the average retail price of new potatoes taken into account for the cost-of-living index for each week during the six-week period commencing 4th May, 1953.
  The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): In accordance with the recommendation of the Cost of Living Advisory Committee, the cost of new potatoes is not, at that time of the year, taken into account in calculating the Interim Index of Retail Prices.
  Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, owing to the policy of the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture, which led to the exclusion of imports of new potatoes at a time when the home crop was totally inadequate, the failure to take the price of these potatoes into account
  1480
  meant that we were leaving out a very important element in the cost of living, because there were not enough old potatoes to feed the people at that period?
  Sir W. Monckton: The principle has been for many years past, and the Cost of Living Advisory Committee still think it right, that in the month of May prices of potatoes used are those of old potatoes only, so long as there are reasonable quantities on sale and sufficient quotations can be obtained. That happened this year, as in the years preceding.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Easington
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Labour the number of partially disabled mineworkers who, owing to their disability, are unable to obtain employment in their occupation and who are registered at the employment exchanges in the Easington rural area; and whether he has any scheme in contemplation for providing them with employment.
    Sir W. Monckton: There are 75 disabled coalminers unemployed in the Easington rural area, of whom 11 are classified as unlikely to obtain employment except under sheltered conditions. My officers make continuous efforts to place them in employment and co-operate with other Departments concerned in encouraging the introduction of fresh employment opportunities both for these men and other unemployed persons in the area.
    Mr. Slater: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that more should be done for these disabled men, that the setting up of more rehabilitation centres should be considered? Is he aware that these men feel they are the forgotten men?
    Sir W. Monckton: I can assure the hon. Member that view is not taken by me or by my Department. We do our best to see that opportunities are given. There are in that area, as the hon. Member probably knows, three Remploy factories for those requiring employment under sheltered conditions. This is an area in which it is difficult to find employment for disabled people who do not require sheltered conditions.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there is a considerable number of women who are registered at the employment exchanges in the Easington rural area; and whether he intends to find employment for them.
    Sir W. Monckton: Yes, I am aware that there is a considerable number of women available for employment in this area. The employment exchanges are doing all they can to assist them to find work.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise there is only one means of finding work in the area, and that is to introduce new and lighter industries into the new town of Peterlee and the adjoining district? Will he try to persuade the President of the Board of Trade to do something in that direction?
    Sir W. Monckton: I saw that the right hon. Gentleman did something himself earlier in the week. I will try to assist his efforts.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is precisely because I have very little influence with the President of the Board of Trade that I am asking him to appeal to his right hon. Friend?
    Sir W. Monckton: We will see what we can do together.

    Wage Increases (Arbitration Boards)
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Labour whether he will recommend to arbitration boards that, white the cost of living remains steady, any wage increases should take the form of an incentive bonus rather than an addition to the basic wage, with a view to stimulating greater national productivity.
    Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. It would be contrary to our long-standing tradition and practice for the Government to make recommendations to the arbitration boards as to the nature of their awards.
    Captain Pilkington: Can my right hon. and learned Friend take any other action which is open to him on a matter on which I think it is agreed on all sides of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—will increase productivity, which is the
    1482
    only way by which the standard of living of the people as a whole can be raised?
    Sir W. Monckton: I do my best to encourage an increase in the standard of productivity, and I shall refrain from making any sort of remarks to the arbitration boards.
    Mr. Isaacs: Is the Minister aware that even the suggestion made by his hon. Friend below the Gangway is likely to cause concern among the trade unions, because the slightest suggestion of any attempt to interfere with an arbitrator is likely to bring the arbitration to a close?
    Sir W. Monckton: It would not be only on one side among those concerned in industry that it would be resented. I do not think anyone should say more.

  CABINET MINISTERS
  Mr. Jayasked the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take to increase the number of Members of the House of Commons in the Cabinet.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): This is not, I think, a matter on which my right hon. Friend would wish to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman's curiosity.
  Mr. Jay: Has the Chancellor noticed that of the now functioning members of the Cabinet, over half are in the House of Lords? Is it deliberate Government policy to extend the power of the House of Lords over the Cabinet, or is the fact that the Prime Minister cannot find suitable candidates on the benches opposite?
  Mr. Butler: I should have thought that the immense preponderance both of intelligence and Parliamentary success witnessed recently in this House would vindicate the situation as at present arranged by my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. H. Morrison: While noting with regret that the right hon. Gentleman is reverting to his earlier style of Parliamentary evasion, is not it the case that when the Government was formed the preponderance of peers in the Government was excessive, and that owing to illness, which we all regret, is it not the case now that the responsible Cabinet is underrepresented—seriously underrepresented—in the deliberations of this House?
  Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that the accident of illness cannot, unfortunately, be helped. He will be gratified to hear that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Housing and Local Government are making very satisfactory progress towards recovery. All of us will be glad to hear that, and none of us can help illness—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Prime Minister?"] The Prime Minister also is doing very well. Apart from that, the total number of peers in this Government is 19, compared with 16 in the last Government, and I do not think that the discrepancy is so very great.
  Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman is an adept at dealing with figures. He must remember that there were only three peers in the Cabinet in the former Administration, which is a very different thing from taking into account the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms.
  Mr. Butler: On the matter of figures I feel sure I should not need so much proficiency as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) in his new post. But leaving that on one side, I have here a note to the effect that the number of peers was not only three, but went up to four at one time in the Labour Government.
  Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman is correct with regard to, I think, the first year of the Labour Government. Thereafter the figure was three—certainly for the last two or three years.
  Mr. Butler: That may well account for the decline in the prestige of the Labour Government.
  Mr. Shinwell: As the right hon. Gentleman, in an earlier reply to a supplementary question by my right hon. Friend, referred to the Prime Minister and said he was getting along very well, will he tell us what is wrong with the Prime Minister? May we not now know? If the right hon. Gentleman informs the House that the Prime Minister is getting along very well, cannot he tell us what is wrong?
  Mr. Butler: There is no mystery about the matter. A statement was made which said that the Prime Minister had to take at least a month's rest, and I am glad to say that the rest is doing the Prime Minister a great deal of good.

  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Mr. Jayasked the Prime Minister what are the present duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement made on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 24th March. It has not been customary to detail the functions discharged by senior Ministers without Departmental duties, except in special circumstances.
  On this occasion, it can be said that, since the appointment of the Lord President of the Council as Acting Foreign Secretary, some of the duties normally performed by him have been transferred to the Chancellor of the Duchy.
  Mr. Jay: Can the Chancellor say whether it is with the advice and approval of the Chancellor of the Duchy that the Minister of Food landed the meat trade in confusion during last week?
  Mr. Butler: All I can say about the Minister of Food is that, if anybody else can do as good a job as he has been doing, they are welcome to it.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: For the better information of hon. Members and the general public, will the Chancellor say who is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Who occupies that post?
  Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the published list of Government appointments.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some indication of the duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy, and say whether his employment is reasonably full-time or not?
  Mr. Butler: The post of Chancellor of the Duchy has been held by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), and, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know what the duties are, I suggest that he should apply to his right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Jay: Would I be in order in reminding the right hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is Lord Woolton?
  Mr. H. Morrison: May I ask whether it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, in his temporary elevation, to treat the House of Commons even worse than the Prime Minister did when he was here?
  Mr. Butler: The answer to that is "No, Sir."

  S.H.A.P.E. (SENIOR POSTS)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make about the recent changes in the senior posts, land and air, at Supreme Headquarters, Allied Forces in Europe.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: Yes, Sir, the first is the establishment of a Commander-in-Chief in the Central European Sector, with co-equal subordinate army, air and naval commands. This is the organisation which already exists in the Northern and Southern European commands. The second is that wider responsibilities are to be given to the Deputy Supreme Commander, Air, at S.H.A.P.E.
  Air Chief Marshal Sir Basil Embry will take over from General Norstad as Commander of all the tactical air forces in the Central Sector, and the latter will relieve Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Saunders who has been Air Deputy at S.H.A.P.E. for the past two years.
  These changes were naturally approved by Her Majesty's Government, and we consider that they will provide a sounder military command organisation on the Continent.
  Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that, when recent changes took place in the appointments of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief and Chief of Staff, an American officer succeeded an American officer? Why is it that, in the case of the Air Deputy, a British officer was succeeded by an American officer? Are there no British air marshals capable of discharging the functions of Air Deputy, or does this new appointment argue a great decline in our influence and in the esteem in which we are held by other countries with whom we are in friendly contact?
  Mr. Butler: Not at all. While we have lost the Air Deputy post, a British officer has taken over from an American as Commander of Tactical Air Forces,
  1486
  Central Europe, and I would further remind the House that the following offices are held by Britishers: Deputy Supreme Allied Commander, Europe; C.-in-C., Northern Area; C.-in-C., Mediterranean; Commander, Naval Forces, Northern Europe; Commander. Northern Army Group; and Commander of the Second Allied Tactical Air Force.
  Mr. Henderson: Does not the Chancellor agree that, in the case of the French marshal, he has been given greater responsibility; in the case of the American air general, he has been given greater responsibility; and, in the case of the British officer—a very distinguished officer—he has been given an appointment which is of lesser rank than that occupied by Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Saunders?
  Mr. Butler: I think it is quite right to put these matters forward, but, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes into consideration the statement that I have made about the air side, and other offices which we hold, I think he will see that we are really in a satisfactory position.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is precisely because Air Chief Marshal Sir Basil Embry has been appointed to a subordinate post in the Central Sector, instead of a British air marshal being appointed to the post formerly held by Sir Hugh Saunders, that we complain; and is he also aware, in regard to the Deputy Supreme Commander, Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, that it is reported that he is due to retire at the end of the year, and that that will leave Marshal Juin in charge of all land forces from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean and the Middle East, and will also leave Marshal Juin in command of all French forces? Is that a satisfactory set-up in S.H.A.P.E.?
  Mr. Butler: We had better deal with the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman question when we reach it. In regard to the former part, I do not believe that there is anything derogatory to Britain in the arrangements that have been made.
  Brigadier Medlicott: While not wishing to raise any question at all in regard to nationalities, which would be very undesirable, can we have an assurance

  1487
  that, in the event of any emergency arising in the forseeable future, arrangements will be made so that the vital services of Lord Montgomery may be made available on the highest level?
  An Hon. Member: Put him in the Government.
  Mr. Butler: I think that the services of Lord Montgomery are fully appreciated by the Government and the House, and my hon. and gallant Friend may feel sure that the utmost use will be made of them.

  KOREA (TRUCE TALKS)
  Sir R. Aclandasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on the possibilities of a truce in Korea.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: On 8th July, the Chinese and North Korean Commanders sent a letter to General Mark Clark agreeing to his proposal for a further meeting of the armistice delegations. According to news agency reports just received, the liaison officers of the two sides have arranged for this meeting to take place tomorrow, 10th July. Her Majesty's Government are glad that General Clark's suggestion has been accepted by the other side, and that direct contact between the armistice delegations is to be resumed.
  On the negotiations between President Syngman Rhee and Mr. Robertson, I have nothing to add to what I said on Monday.
  Sir R. Acland: Does not the Chancellor feel that, now that Senators Knowland and McCarthy are openly backing President Syngman Rhee's intransigence, we are reaching a position in which the voice of Britain will have to be heard, and that we shall have to say that we cannot for ever be associated with a war carried on for no other purpose than to back up Syngman Rhee's aggressive intent?
  Mr. Butler: All these serious aspects are realised on both sides of the Atlantic. Meanwhile, I think the House will be pleased to hear that direct contact will be resumed tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: Will the Leader of the House now tell us the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 13TH JULY—Third Reading: Finance Bill, until about 8 p.m.
Report and Third Reading: University of St. Andrew's Bill [Lords]; Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Consideration of the Lords Amendment to the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Report and Third Reading: National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (No. 2) Bill.
TUESDAY, 14TH JULY—Supply [20th Allotted Day]: Committee—
Debate on Scottish Industry, Employment and Well-being.
Second Reading: Isle of Man (Customs) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 15TH JULY—Supply [21st Allotted Day]: Committee—
Conclusion of debate on Scottish Industry, Employment and Well-being.
Motions relating to: Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order; Herring Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) Scheme; White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme.
THURSDAY, 16TH JULY—Supply [22nd Allotted Day]: Committee—
Debate on Colonial Economic Development, the Colombo Plan and the work of the United Nations Agencies for the Development of the Backward Areas of the World.
Consideration of the Motion relating to Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation.
FRIDAY, 17TH JULY—Committee and remaining stages of the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill.
Committee and, if possible, the remaining stages of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission Bill.
Committee and remaining stages of the Post Office Bill [Lords]: and the Registration Service Bill [Lords] which are both Consolidation Measures.
Mr. Attlee: Will the Leader of the House note that, in view of the obvious need for a discussion on foreign affairs before the House rises, we should like to have a two-day discussion in the week after next on foreign affairs.
Mr. Crookshank: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ernest Davies: Does the Leader of the House propose to find Government time to debate the British Transport Commission's Report before we adjourn for the summer Recess?
Mr. Crookshank: I do not see any opportunity of finding Government time but as I said the other day, perhaps that could best be discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. Davies: Is it not a fact that the Government refuse to find time because they do not want this very fine report to be discussed?
Mr. Crookshank: That is not the position at all. From now until the summer Recess there are only five days of Government time and we should not like the time of the House to be wasted by not concluding the legislation now before it.
Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman said something about there being no Government time available. He is aware, I presume, that the Government are under an obligation to find three days for the discussion of the affairs of public corporations?
Mr. Crookshank: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman asked for a discussion before the summer Recess. That is quite a different matter.
Mr. Noel-Baker: When in Opposition were not hon. Gentlemen constantly complaining that the reports of the nationalised boards could not be discussed until they were long out of date, and have not the Government allowed nine months to go by without a single discussion?
Mr. Crookshank: There have not been nine months since the publication of these Reports but only a comparatively short time. Perhaps this matter can be discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the fact that so much time has been generously awarded to Scotland next week, and that English Members will not attend during those debates, would it not be for the convenience of the House if the House met in Edinburgh?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Wyatt: When we get to the foreign affairs debate, will the acting Prime Minister speak for the Government? Will anybody in authority be able to speak for the Government, or will special arrangements have to be made to have a committee meeting upstairs to meet the acting-Foreign Minister?
Mr. Hector Hughes: Is it not anomalous to suggest that a discussion of the Report of the British Transport Commission would be a waste of time of the House, in view of the urgency of the subject?
Mr. Crookshank: The hon. and learned Gentleman is surely too learned to try to put words into my mouth which I never used.
Mr. Robens: If I were to mention "Council of Europe" would it strike a chord in the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Crookshank: Certainly, a voice from the past, because I told the right hon. Gentleman the other day that I never see him without thinking of that interesting and absorbing topic. As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has just said, there are to be two days on foreign affairs, and it might be possible that this subject could be mentioned during those two days.
Mr. Norman Smith: Can the Leader of the House say definitely when the House will adjourn for the summer Recess?
Mr. Crookshank: I should be very glad to do so, but it depends how we get along during the month of July. I could not possibly give a definite date now, but I might possibly express a hope. The hope would be that it will be before Bank Holiday, but it will require some cooperation.
Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information whether we are likely to have an

1491
opportunity before the Session ends of hearing and discussing the Government's plans about the continuation of National Service and whether it can be done by Order in Council or whether there has to be an amending Measure? Obviously the matter will have to be dealt with at some time.
Mr. Crookshank: Yes, but it does not have to be dealt with in July, I am happy to say.
Mr. Harold Davies: Can the Leader of the House inform us whether there will be an opportunity before the Recess to discuss the British coal situation, the Government's policy with regard to coal at home and for export, and our relationship to the European Coal Community?
Mr. Crookshank: I cannot answer that, because there are still a number of days at the disposal of Her Majesty's Opposition, who might possibly suggest that subject for one of them.
Mr. Mikardo: How is it that, while the right hon. Gentleman does not know when we shall rise for the summer Recess, he does know that there are only five days of Government time now remaining?
Mr. Crookshank: Because the five days to which I referred are based upon the hope.
Mr. Follick: As I am personally interested in the matter, I should like to know if we are coming back after the Recess or not.

GOLD COAST (PUBLIC SERVICE)
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the future of the Public Service in the Gold Coast.
I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of a statement which the Prime Minister of the Gold Coast made yesterday in the Legislative Assembly about the future of the Gold Coast Public Service, with particular reference to overseas officers. The statement recognises that, to maintain an efficient administrative machine, the Gold Coast Government
1492
will for some years to come need the services of overseas officers. The Gold Coast Government therefore guarantee to overseas officers pensions and terms of service no less favourable than those obtaining today, and the maintenance of the principle of promotion by merit alone.
The statement proposes the introduction, not later than July, 1954, of the first stage of a two-stage scheme of compensation, additional to normal pensions, for serving officers retiring before their time. It suggests that, after the scheme has been approved by the Gold Coast Legislative Assembly and by the Secretary of State, it should form part of any constitutional settlement reached between Her Majesty's Government and the Gold Coast Government.
I welcome this statement and the intention of the Gold Coast Government which it proclaims, to retain the services of overseas officers under satisfactory conditions of service. I also warmly welcome the ready recognition by the Gold Coast Government of their responsibility to compensate officers whose conditions of appointment may be affected by future constitutional changes, and their desire to work out a fair and reasonable scheme.
Mr. Attlee: We shall, of course, want to study the statement in detail, but I think that we would also wish to express our admiration of the speech of the Prime Minister of the Gold Coast. It seemed to me to be full of statesmanship and a recognition that this is a very difficult subject. I had some experience of it in relation to India and Pakistan. If the Gold Coast Government are to function in the future it is quite essential that the administration should be kept up to the highest pitch. I think that that can only be done at the present time by British officers being given confidence.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: To create that confidence among British officers is it not time that we built up steadily some form of Commonwealth service based on security of pension in this country, so that the long-term interests of these people should be safeguarded?
Mr. Speaker: I think that that is a wider question, and the statement which will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT is very long.
Mr. Speaker, I seek your permission to make an important statement on the future of the Public Service with particular reference to overseas officers. The occasion for making this statement arises from the proposals in the White Paper, which envisage a change in the position of officers for whom the Secretary of State is responsible. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is particularly concerned with two important aspects of this problem. First, how to help the successful development of the country by continuing to provide overseas staff as requested by the Gold Coast Government and by supporting the expressed desire of this Government to encourage overseas officers to remain in the Service for as long as they are needed. Secondly, he wishes to fulfil his obligations towards officers holding Secretary of State's appointments.
This Government, for its part, realises that it must have an efficient administrative machine to give effect to Government policy and it is at one with the Secretary of State in its desire to ensure that the responsibility towards officers holding Secretary of State's appointments is fully discharged. In this respect the Gold Coast would not wish to be any less conscious of its responsibilities than were the Governments of India, Pakistan and Ceylon
But having said this, I wish to emphasise that in the context of this statement the countries which I have mentioned do not provide an exact analogy with the Gold Coast. At the time they achieved independence all of them had a Public Service which was largely indigenous. In my October statement on constitutional reform, I remarked that in the Gold Coast political advance had outstripped the Africanisation of the Public Service. We find ourselves, therefore, on the threshhold of independence having to rely far more on the services of overseas officers than was the case in India and the other countries which I have mentioned.
The Africanisation of the Public Service has made great strides in recent times and the Government is doing everything possible compatible with efficiency to accelerate the pace of Africanisation. We have more than laid the foundations of the African Civil Service of the future. But the fact must be faced that for some years to come we shall have to continue to rely on the services of overseas officers. It is therefore imperative that we should make our attitude clear towards this class of officer, and that the officers themselves should know where they stand.
I am aware that on the eve of fundamental constitutional changes which inevitably involve a change of conditions of their service, there is a feeling of uncertainty regarding their future among serving officers. I want to allay this uncertainty by assuring overseas officers that a fully self-governing Gold Coast will need and want their services and that their interests will be fully safeguarded.
I will now outline the general principles which Government propose to adopt. At the outset, I would remark that one of the main considerations is to provide a breathing space
1494
during which the transition to a Gold Coast Local Service can be completed as smoothly as possible. We seek to avoid any sudden exodus of overseas officers and by safeguarding their future to induce them to remain
While appreciating the need for accelerated Africanisation, Government do not propose that this should be achieved at the expense of efficiency, or that promotion in the Service should be on the basis of colour. At the same time, changed conditions of service will be recognised by the introduction of a scheme for compensation. The timetable for this scheme is related more to the need for achieving a smooth transition than to the programme for constitutional reform.
Before I embark on the details of the timetable I should like to give certain general assurances. We guarantee pensions and reasonable terms of service which will be no less favourable than those obtaining today, and we propose to maintain the principle that promotion is by merit alone. This is without prejudice to a policy under which special facilities will be accorded to Africans to enable them to compete on merit with overseas officers. All overseas officers desiring to do so will have the right to join the Local Service.
I come now to the details of our proposals. A scheme will be introduced not later than July, 1954, under which serving officers will be permitted to retire, if they so desire, with a compensatory allowance in addition to their earned pension. This arrangement takes into consideration that the proposals for the next constitutional advance will result in a diminution of existing safeguards, but will not amount to a radical change.
I have in mind the possible disappearance of ex-officio Ministers; the consultations with the Prime Minister in regard to the filling of certain higher posts in the Civil Service and in respect of appointments to the Public Service Commission; the attachment of the Establishment Secretary to the office of the Prime Minister; and the proposal to create training posts in the interests of accelerated Africanisation. I want to make it quite clear, however, that these changes are in no way intended to prejudice the principle emphasised in the White Paper that the public service should be free from political control or influence.
There will be no supersession of serving officers on the grounds of race; the Public Service Commission, however, would have discretion to widen the field of recruitment to promotion posts if, in their opinion, there were not officers in the service of sufficient experience and of the necessary calibre to fill any specific appointment, or in the case of newly created posts to which special conditions apply.
Not more than two years after the introduction of the scheme of compensatory allowance, Government will introduce a scheme of lump sum compensation, as has been done elsewhere. The details of this scheme are still the subject of actuarial examination. At this stage, any officer who desires to do so would have the alternative of retiring with his ordinary pension and compensatory allowance.
In the case of African officers, it is considered that sentiments of patriotism will impel them to continue to serve their country and that they can look for a positive improvement in their prospects. Nevertheless, it has been agreed in view of the Secretary of State's responsibility for those African officers who have not opted to join the local service that any African officer holding a Secretary of State's appointment who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that his position and prospects in the service have been prejudiced, or that he has legitimate cause for anxiety about his future in the service, should be permitted to retire under the compensation scheme. This is in accordance with the precedent afforded by India, but it is anticipated that such cases would be rare, if any occurred at all.
At the request of the Gold Coast Government, the Secretary of State has agreed that officers for whom he has a responsibility and who by the end of the transitional period join the Gold Coast Local Service will continue thereafter to be eligible for transfer within the Colonial Service. Officers accepting transfer without a break in service to equivalent pensionable posts elsewhere would have no right to compensation; but those remaining in the Gold Coast Local Service would have a continuing right to retire with either form of compensation.
The representatives of the Association of Senior Civil Servants have already been informed of these proposals and will be further consulted before they are finalised. It is intended that after finality has been reached on these proposals which are subject to the approval of this Assembly and of the Secretary of State, the arrangements will be confirmed in any Constitutional Settlement arrived at with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. I trust that in the result the future of the Public Service in the Gold Coast will be assured, and that this country, whatever Government is in power, will be able to rely on the loyalty and efficiency of the members of that Service.

BILL PRESENTED
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL
  "to amend the law with respect to customs in the Isle of Man," presented by Mr. Boyd-Carpenter; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  VALUATION FOR RATING BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  VALUATION FOR RATING BILL

    Clause 2.—(NEW PROVISIONS FOR ASCERTAINING GROSS VALUE OF DWELLING-HOUSES AND PRIVATE GARAGES.)
    3.43 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after "garage," to insert:
    "or private storage premises."
    This Amendment is the first of a string of Amendments which are designed to meet the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government gave an assurance that the Bill would be amended to provide for the assessment on 1939 values, and not current values, of cycle, perambulator or store sheds where they form a separate rateable hereditament. As the Bill stands, if a shed is within the curtilage it is valued at 1939 value, but if it is outside the curtilage and forms a separate hereditament it will be valued at current value.
    The hon. Member for Clapham, quite rightly, pointed out that in the case of London municipal flats, where the occupant of a flat had a storage shed or perambulator shed outside the curtilage it would be unfair on the occupant of that flat if he had to pay on a higher assessment than he would have to pay if the shed were within the curtilage. This Amendment, therefore, has been designed to meet that point.
    One of the other Amendments defines the words "private storage premises."
    3.45 p.m.
    Mr. C. W. Gibson: I only rise to address my thanks to the Minister for having so completely met the points which I raised in Committee. This provision will be of very great help to tenants not only of London County Council flats but of flats which are being built in many other towns and boroughs where additional amenities of this kind

    1497
    provided for the service of tenants are well away from the flats in which those tenants live.
    Mr. Arthur Skeffington: As one who was associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) in advocating this course in Committee, I should like to thank the Minister for meeting the points which were then raised.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Marples: I beg to move m page 1, line 18, at the end, to insert:
    Provided that this subsection shall not apply in a case where that rent exceeds the amount which would be the gross value of the hereditament if ascertained by reference to the said definition.
    This is a drafting Amendment, which is aimed at brevity and simplicity, something which hon. Members are always pressing upon the Government of the day. It affects Clause 2 (1), which says that the gross values shall not be ascertained by reference to current values and consequently that the gross values, for rateable purposes, shall be ascertained as laid down in Clause 2 (2), that is, shall be the 1939 values.
    The 1939 rateable values are acceptable to those houses where the 1939 value is lower than the current value, but, of course, it is unfair and, ipso facto, unacceptable to those houses where the current value in 1953, 1954 and 1955 is less than the 1939 values. The type of house which my right hon. Friend has in mind is a house that has lost its letting value since the war. It may be in a war-damaged area and worth less than it was in 1939 and, therefore, it would be unfair to say that it should take the 1939 value. It is right and proper that it should take the current value, if that value is lower. So that category is an exception to the rule of 1939 value.
    Clause 2 (7) of the Bill contains about 14 lines of almost incomprehensible words to me as a layman, and it is those words that make this exception. It was found that if the 14 lines were omitted and the four lines on the Order Paper inserted in their place those four lines, which are comprehensible, would carry out the same purpose. This Amendment, therefore, does not alter the effect of the Bill. It makes it simpler and shorter, and, I hope, more comprehensible It inserts four lines
    1498
    which can be understood by a layman in place of 14 that I do not think can be understood. I hope that the House will accept that explanation and will agree to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker: I understand that the next three Amendments on the Order Paper are consequential.
    Mr. Marples: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out from "time," to "and" in line 14, and to insert "of valuation."
    I do not think that the three Amendments are consequential, Mr. Speaker, but I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we took the Amendment in page 2, and in page 3, line 15.
    The first two Amendments are preparatory to the third, which is designed to meet the point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who asked what was the meaning of the words:
    "… at the time when the gross value being ascertained; …"
    There seems to be some doubt about it and the hon. Member properly raised the matter. My right hon. Friend undertook to look at it. It is not quite clear whether this denotes the time when the new list comes into force or when the proposal to alter it is made, or whether it might denote a later time when, perhaps, the courts were determining the dispute. This Amendment leaves the legal position as it is at present. That was decided in the case of Barratt v. Gravesend, a very famous case in 1941, to the effect that the material date for valuation is that at which the proposal is made.
    There has been no decision as to the date in connection with the new list, but I think it is common opinion among the valuers that the material date is that at which the list comes into force. Therefore, this Amendment leaves the law as it is today, namely, that the operative date is the date when the list comes into force. If there were an action in the courts and the matter dragged out for some time the operative date would be the date when the list came into force and not when the court came to a decision.
    Mr. Douglas Houghton: May I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for meeting this small point that I made

    1499
    in the course of our discussions upstairs? I must not be critical, but I will offer a reflection on the use of the English language because I see that we are to amend paragraph (a) in this subsection to read:
    "… subsists at the time of valuation; "
    and, at the same time, are to say that the time of valuation is not the time of valuation but the time at which the valuation would have fallen to be made. I suppose we get there in the end, but it is one of those exercises in time in which the scientists have been indulging for many years and in which, apparently, we also indulge.
    Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I should like to know whether the effect of this Amendment will be that valuation for rating in respect of new houses before the new list materialises, will be based on current values or on 1939 values.
    Mr. Marples: The new list will, of course, be made out on the basis that is laid down in this Bill when it becomes an Act, which is, in effect, the 1939 value, except in those cases which are called "white elephant" houses, which have lost their value, in which case it will be the current value if the current value is lower than the 1939 value.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Perhaps the Minister would like to consider this. This is a very important matter. I wish to know, in view of this Amendment, so far as valuation is concerned, whether proposals that are made now or at any time before the new list materialises are based on present values and not on 1939 values.
    Mr. Marples: No assessments will be made except on the provisions laid down in this Bill. It has proved quite impossible to make new lists on the basis of the 1948 Act. That is the reason for this Measure. Therefore, the basis of valuation of the new list which will be deposited will, of course, be on the 1939 values except, as I have said, in the case of "white elephant" houses.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 2, leave out line 23, and insert "of valuation."
    In page 3, line 15, at end, insert:
    (7) For the purposes of this section the time of valuation, in relation to any act done or proceeding taken for the purpose mentioned
    1500
    in subsection (1) of this section, shall be taken to be the time by reference to which the gross value of the hereditament in question would for the purposes of that act or proceeding have fallen to be ascertained if this section had not been enacted.
    In page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (7).—[Mr. Marples.]

    Clause 3.—(DEFINITIONS OF "DWELLING-HOUSE" AND "PRIVATE GARAGE.")
    Mr. Marples: I beg to move in page 3, line 33, to leave out "and."
    Mr. Speaker: I take it that this is consequential on the first Amendment, in page 1, line 11?
    Mr. Marples: It is, Mr. Speaker. It prepares a way for the definition of "private storage premises" which comes later in the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Marples: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 34 and 35, and to insert:
    "having a floor space not exceeding two hundred and forty square feet and used as a lock-up garage, other than a hereditament."
    This is a drafting Amendment to make it quite clear that what makes a structure count as a private garage and so assessable as a private garage—that is, at 1939 values—is what it was being used for and not what it was built for. It may be built as a garage and perhaps used as a store for fruit, as it often is in the West End of London, in which case it should be assessed not on 1939 values but on current values. This makes it quite clear that the test is what it is used for and not what it was built for.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Marples: I beg to move, in page 3, line 46, at the end, to insert:
    "and the expression 'private storage premises' means a hereditament used wholly in connection with a dwelling-house or dwelling houses and so used wholly or mainly for the storage or accommodation of any of the following articles belonging to persons residing in that dwelling-house or those dwelling-houses, namely, household stores and other articles of domestic use and light vehicles (that is to say, bicycles, tricycles, perambulators and other similar vehicles) whether mechanically propelled or not."
    This is a definition which appears on the Order Paper to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Clapham. We have carefully studied his speech in Committee and have taken note of the great

    1501
    erudition that he displays in these matters, and we have tried, in this Amendment, to meet the point that he raised. I think he will find that it covers almost all the things asked for by him. I can assure him that we went into it in great detail, and that I think this is sufficiently comprehensive for his purpose.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 5.—(MODIFICATION OF GROSS VALUE IN CASE OF AGRICULTURAL DWELLING-HOUSES.)
    Amendments made: In page 6, line 13, leave out from beginning, to "from," in line 18, and insert:
    "subsection (2) of section two of this Act shall have effect as if the undertaking on the part of the tenant referred to in that subsection had incorporated a provision precluding the hereditament."
    In page 6, line 32, leave out from "shall" to end of line 33, and insert:
    "apply for the purposes of the proviso to subsection (1) of section two of this Act, that is to say, for determining what would be the gross value if ascertained as mentioned in that proviso, but shall not apply for the purpose of ascertaining the gross value of a hereditament where that value falls to be ascertained in accordance with the said subsection (1)."—[Mr. Marples.]

    Clause 6.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS WHERE ADDITIONAL SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY LANDLORD.)
    Mr. Marples: I beg to move, in page 6, line 39, after "garage," to insert:
    "or private storage premises."
    This and the next three Amendments are consequential on what I have called a private storage premises Amendment arising from a point made by the hon. Member for Clapham in Committee. They either insert the words "private storage premises" or alter the Title so as to include "private storage premises."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 15 after "garage," insert:
    "or private storage premises."—[Mr. Marples.]

    Clause 6.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS WHERE ADDITIONAL SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY LANDLORD.)

      Title
      Amendments made: In line 2, leave out first "and."
      After "garages." insert:
      "and private storage premises."—[Mr. Marples.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
      4.0 p.m.
      Mr. Marples: I think I should say a few words on Third Reading. I want to express the thanks of my right hon. Friend and myself, first, for the reasoned Amendments and suggestions made in Committee by hon. Members opposite, who have great knowledge of this subject. There is no doubt that they have helped to make this Measure a better one. Most of the Amendments put down on the Report stage resulted from discussions in Committee upstairs. I also thank hon. Members opposite for the spirit in which they took part in the debates. They were opposed in principle to some of the steps we proposed, but they contributed to the debate in a spirit of helpfulness and brevity.
      Although they are opposed in principle to this Measure, they have not yet been able to offer an alternative which would work, as the hon. Member for Sowerby frequently pointed out. If it is not impertinent, I should like to thank him for that. He became a kind of assistant unpaid Parliamentary Secretary to my right hon. Friend and, in the absence of my right hon. Friend in hospital, I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman might care to come over to this side of the House and assist me in the final stages of this Measure.
      I want to make it quite clear that this Bill does not alter the main structure of the rating provisions of the Local Government Act, 1948. There, the rating valuation was transferred to the central Government by hon. Members opposite, in the days of the Socialist Government, and we have kept that quite intact. They then decided to abolish the rating of electricity undertakings and railways, and that has not been affected. They also decided that the valuation of properties, other than dwelling-houses, should be left under the provisions of the 1925 Act, on current values. This Bill does not affect that. All that we have provided is that the rating of houses shall be on the 1939 basis, as hon. Members opposite proposed in their 1948 Act. But we have had to alter the definition of that basis because it proved to be the only way in which it would work.

      1503
      On Third Reading, it is inevitable that we get a certain amount of repetition. It would not be right for me to pursue some of the topics which were raised on Second Reading, which ranged far and wide. We had the help of a wealth of talent, not only in this House but from experts outside, such as Henry George, Mr. Neville Chamberlain and Mrs. Hicks, all of whom made a great study of this matter, but it would be out of order to go further into their views now.
      The purpose of this Bill is a narrow one. We hope it will work. So far, nobody has shown that any other method would work. Criticism has been directed against this Measure on certain grounds, and I admit that it has its disadvantages, but nobody has put forward an alternative solution. It may be that this is a choice of evils.
      Mr. Hugh Dalton: The hon. Member said that nobody has suggested an alternative. "The Times" contains a very interesting leading article this morning, the short purport of which is to say that we should make a great effort to arrive at a basis of current values, and cut out restrospection.
      Mr. Marples: "The Times" also had a leader when we were on Second Reading, but it was misconceived. I agree that we should get on to current values as soon as possible, but it is not possible at present, because there is not a free market for current valus.
      Mr. J. A. Sparks: There never has been.
      Mr. Marples: It is a question of degree. In 1939 it was very much more free than it is now, although it was not free then. One thing is quite clear; it is not free now—it is worse.
      Mr. G. R. Mitchison: As a matter of fact, "The Times" went further. They said not only that current values should be taken, but actual values. In saying that they had no doubt been persuaded by me.
      Mr. Dalton: The Parliamentary Secretary should read "The Times."
      Mr. Marples: On this issue they misconceived the position. They have not always been sound on this question, or on the question of the new towns, as hon.
      1504
      Members opposite pointed out in the Second Reading debate on the New Towns Bill, the Committee stage of which is following this Bill. If I say that they have erred on this occasion, I hope they will not hold it against me on the subject of the new towns.
      I should like to reciprocate the reasoned speeches which the hon. Member for Sowerby made. When this Bill gets on to the Statute Book, I hope that a reasonable opportunity, free from criticism, will be given to the valuers, whose job is not easy. It was not easy to interpret the cost of construction method, which was laid upon the Inland Revenue by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). They performed a noble task on that occasion, and I would appeal to all hon. Members to give the valuers a fair crack of the whip and a chance to make their valuation before they are criticised.
      It would only be fair for me to help the hon. Member for Sowerby, after he has been so good in helping the Government. With those words I commend this Bill to the House and end, as I began, by thanking hon. Members opposite for the kind way in which they have co-operated in the various stages of this Bill.
      4.7 p.m.
      Mr. John Edwards: I begin by saying how much we regret the circumstances which prevent the Minister from being here today. We were all glad to learn that he has had a successful operation and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish the Parliamentary Secretary to tell him, from us, that we hope the operation will be a complete success and that he will make a speedy recovery.
      I was glad that the Parliamentary Secretary thought he could give us such a complimentary account of our behaviour. I am glad to have it on record that, at least on this occasion, we have been reasonable. I thought we were always reasonable, and that the trouble was that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite would not always listen, and it was the defect in hearing on their part which occasionally caused us to be a little troublesome when our good advice was not taken.

      1505
      The hon. Member has told us that the main structure of the 1948 Act is unchanged. That is true. What we are concerned with here is the basis on which people are to pay rates. Although this matter has not excited very great interest so far, outside technical circles, I prophesy that it will excite much greater interest when the rates come to be levied, on the first lists. At the moment people do not appreciate what is involved. Only the valuers and technical people have so far exercised their minds about it.
      In the Second Reading debate I made what I hope was a reasonable and very full case in favour of the Government giving us the fullest possible information, first, about the circumstances in which they had found that the provisions of the 1948 Act—Sections 74 to 82—were inadequate and, secondly, the circumstances in which, as far as they could tell, their proposals would operate.
      It is true that the Minister gave us a little more information about the alleged failure of the provisions of the 1948 Act, but nobody could say that that information was adequate. Even if I give the Government the benefit of the doubt as to the provisions of the 1948 Act, I cannot give them any benefit of any doubt in respect of their own proposals. We are now reverting to the hypothetical tenant and, to boot, the hypothetical house.
      Nothing that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister have said has dispelled in the slightest my anxieties about the proposals contained in Clause 2 of the Bill. We know that the Parliamentary Secretary has had the benefit of the preliminary valuations conducted by the valuers. He said so. In another connection there has been a row about that, but I am not concerned with whether the work should have been done; I am concerned solely with the fact that it was done. It was the basis upon which the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary introduced the Bill, but neither on Second Reading nor in Committee, or now, have we had a single word to indicate what the likely consequences of valuation on this basis would be.
      On certain occasions I have speculated a little, on the basis of such evidence as I can get—and, I think, on the whole fairly good evidence—about the likely consequences of valuation on these lists,
      1506
      and I have been concerned, as have my hon. Friends, to try to obtain some safeguard. At one stage I hoped that we might find a safeguard by way of alterations in statutory reductions, and the right hon. Gentleman said he would bear the point in mind. I hoped it might be possible to have a gap between the publication of the list and the levying of the rate, but my new Clause on that point was out of order.
      All my attempts to secure this safeguard have failed and I am left with a most uneasy feeling that there will be a change in the incidence of rates as between various classes of house property. That kind of thing will cause a lot of trouble, and I do not look with any equanimity on being a member of a future Government which might have to deal with this problem. Whether I were in office or the present Parliamentary Secretary were in office, as a Department we should have the most unholy trouble in front of us when the rates came to be levied on the new lists if those lists disturbed the incidence of the rate burden. It is because of that and not from any party interest that I have been primarily concerned to expound those anxieties and to try to get some assurances or safeguard.
      I do not think I need say more. I do not think the Government have met us by giving us all the information they could have given. For that reason, and for the reason that we are extremely anxious, as we have been throughout, about the final results of the Bill, we shall feel bound to ask the House to divide against its Third Reading.
      4.12 p.m.
      Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: The right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) said that this Bill has not hitherto excited much anxiety in the public mind. He went on to predict that when the time came to levy the rate on the new valuation lists, the excitement likely to be aroused would be a great deal more serious. That is true. But if I recollect it correctly, the right hon. Gentleman advocated, both on Second Reading and in Committee, that valuation should be based upon current values.
      Mr. Dalton: Agreeing with "The Times."
      Sir G. Hutchinson: The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) confirms the impression which I got from his right hon. Friend and fortifies himself with "The Times," which is often a source of strength to him, although at times it proves to be a source of weakness.
      What would happen if my right hon. Friend proposed to value dwelling-houses on current values? There is a scarcity factor at present. Suppose the valuers set to work to ascertain the rent which a tenant might be expected to pay for a dwelling-house at current values, with all the scarcity factors taken into account. I was glad to see the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) assent, by nodding, with this proposition a moment ago.
      Suppose that had been done. The right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough said there would be an unholy row if the rate burden were disturbed by this Bill. Holy or unholy, the row would have been much greater if my right hon. Friend had accepted the suggestion that we should try to value dwelling-houses today upon current rental values.
      Mr. Sparks: Is the hon. and learned Member correct in saying that this suggestion was originally made from this side of the House? It was, in fact, the view of his party in 1948 that the current value should be taken. The evidence on that point can be seen from the Standing Committee Report. Why have they changed their view?
      Sir G. Hutchinson: I was not in the House in 1948—a temporary absence. If we have changed it—
      Mr. Mitchison: I hope that if we are to consider what is not in the Bill, the hon. and learned Member will state the whole proposal. It was said that a considerable adjustment should be made to current values either before or after arriving at the gross rateable value.
      Mr. Speaker: I must warn the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) against accepting the advice of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), for that would be out of order.
      Sir G. Hutchinson: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, although I would gladly have dealt with the point had I been in order in doing so.
      The problem which confronted my right hon. Friend was to find a basis upon whch a new valuation list could be prepared. It is true that this Bill adopts one basis of valuation for one class of hereditament and a different basis of valuation for another class of hereditament. That can never be satisfactory. I think we all recognise the difficulty. But my right hon. Friend was driven to that decision. There is really no practical alternative to going back to 1939 values.
      The Bill provides a temporary solution to this difficulty. I was glad that my right hon. Friend accepted an Amendment which I moved on behalf of a number of my hon. Friends in Committee which restricted the 1939 basis of valuation to the next valuation list and to that list only. When the new valuation list has been prepared and deposited, then the Government of the day will have to determine upon what basis subsequent valuation lists are to be made. If I may say so to the Parliamentary Secretary, the decision to accept that modification was a very wise decision.
      The fact remains that although the Bill is not a satisfactory feature in some ways, the course which my right hon. Friend has taken was the only course open to him when we take into account such factors as rent control, decontrol, re-control and the general scarcity of dwelling-houses, together with all the other factors which affect residential hereditaments at present. If all those factors were taken into account, it would have been an impossible task to have attempted the valuation of dwelling-houses on current values.
      Whether this Bill will produce a greater measure of uniformity than exists at present it is difficult to say. I do not share the enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend for central valuation. I should have preferred to see the task of valuation go back to those authorities who performed it for so long. But there it is; my right hon. Friend has decided otherwise. I do not think there is any very marked lack of uniformity as between one hereditament and another in the same rating area or even as between one hereditament and

      1509
      another in the same county. The serious lack of uniformity in valuation is not between hereditaments but between counties and county boroughs. There there is a very serious lack of uniformity.
      It is not astonishing that that should be so, because when the Act of 1925 was passed it mattered very little whether there was uniformity between counties and county boroughs or not. That matter only became of primary importance when the Act of 1948 made the distribution of the Exchequer equalisation grant primarily dependent upon rateable value per head of the population.
      It is this lack of uniformity in valuation between counties and county boroughs that is serious today and will continue to be serious until the new valuation lists are deposited. It may be then that we shall find that that lack of uniformity as between counties and county boroughs has been adjusted. I do not know. But, unless it is, it is clear that the working of the Exchequer equalisation grant can never be equitable. We have now got certain proposals for temporary adjustment of these difficulties.
      Mr. Dalton: On a point of order. There is no provision in the Bill touching the Exchequer equalisation grant. If the whole subject is to be opened up there is much more to be said. I submit that the hon. and learned Gentleman is totally out of order.
      Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. My attention was momentarily diverted, otherwise I would have checked the hon. and learned Gentleman.
      Sir G. Hutchinson: The Bill deals with valuation. The distribution of the grant depends entirely on valuation. One of the grounds on which this Measure is commended to the House is that it will establish that degree of uniformity as between different rating areas which does not exist now and which is essential for the satisfactory working of the present system of distribution of the Exchequer equalisation grant.
      Mr. Speaker: In so far as that is relevant it may be referred to. But if the fact that the grant depends upon valuation were to permit discussion of the Exchequer equalisation grant on this
      1510
      Motion that would widen the scope of the debate enormously, because a lot of other things depend upon valuation in addition to the Exchequer equalisation grant.
      Sir G. Hutchinson: This Bill is a temporary solution of the rating problem. It will be three years—1956—before the new valuation lists can be deposited. During that time my right hon. Friend has an opportunity to conduct what I believe is most urgently needed—an investigation into all these rating problems and the problems which have now become allied to rating. It is nearly 50 years since the final Report of the last Royal Commission on local taxation and expenditure was published. Since then the situation has completely changed. All these problems, though, in fact, separate, are really part of a general complex of interrelated problems none of which can be satisfactorily solved in isolation.
      My right hon. Friend, or anybody who may find himself in his office in future, would be assisted in arriving at an acceptable solution of these problems if he was fortified, not only with the advice of "The Times"—and here "The Times" is on my side—but with the advice of a Royal Commission which has examined fully and comprehensively, in relation to one another, these difficult and complex problems.
      4.25 p.m.
      Mr. Donald Wade: I wish to express my regret that the Minister is unable to be here. I sincerely hope that he will soon recover his full health. We appreciated the good humour and charm with which he piloted the Bill through the Committee. I should like to repeat a comment I made on Second Reading, which was also made during the Committee stage. It is true that the difficulties of the valuer are great—they may or may not be improved by this Bill—but the difficulties of the ratepayer will undoubtedly be greater, especially the ones who wish to appeal.
      I hope that the Minister will consider this matter. Some ratepayers will get nasty shocks when the new valuation lists are published. Those who wish to appeal will find themselves in great difficulty. I hope that some consideration will be given to removing some of the difficulties in the way of the ratepayer who wishes to appeal.

      1511
      The Bill does not remove the existing lack of uniformity. I shall not discuss the Exchequer equalisation grant. I am thinking not only of the difference between one type of dwelling-house and another but also of the disparity between different classes of property—between dwelling-houses and industrial premises, agricultural land and agricultural property, and between premises which are derated and shops and offices which are not. It is difficult to see how this new system will work out, but it would appear that by comparison, the occupiers of shops and offices will come off worst of all—when the new valuation lists come out.
      The maintenance of this illogical state of affairs can be justified only on the ground that it is temporary and that it is necessary to introduce this temporary Measure to enable valuation lists to be completed. I had intended, during the Committee stage, to move an Amendment to delete the words, "and subsequent lists." Unfortunately, I was unexpectedly in hospital. I was glad to see from the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that Members of the two major parties rushed to the support of the Liberal Party when this Amendment was called. I am pleased that the Amendment was accepted by the Minister, but the fact that the words "and subsequent lists" have been deleted and that the Bill now reads:
      "For the purpose of making or altering the first valuation lists made after the passing of this Act …"
      emphasises the temporary nature of this Measure. It is merely a stop-gap Measure. A case has been made out for it because the existing system has broken down. I believe that the Government have made out their case but this is only a temporary stop-gap.
      I hope that the time that will be available before subsequent valuation lists are drawn up will be used in working out a radical reform of our rating system. It would scarcely be appropriate to enter into a discussion about the kind of reform which I think would be most fitting, but I would observe that we can never have a satisfactory system which is based on either real or estimated rental values. It would be far better to base our rating system on site values, and, indeed, we
      1512
      now have an opportunity to consider the whole matter very carefully. It would be possible, before subsequent valuation lists are prepared, to introduce a new system of rating based on site values rather than on estimated rental values.
      So long as rates are based on estimated or real rental values, it is inevitable that those who improve their properties will, sooner or later, be penalised by the fact that their rates will be increased since by improving their properties owners or occupiers increase the rental values. I urge the Minister to take this opportunity of considering the whole question of our rating system, and I sincerely hope that the passing of this Bill will not be regarded as an excuse for shelving a radical reform of an antiquated and illogical system.
      4.31 p.m.
      Mr. Skeffington: Surprise has been expressed from this side of the Chamber that so little interest has been taken in this Bill outside the House. That is an astonishing fact when one considers that practically every household in the country will be affected by its provisions, and many industrial premises. After all, the local authorities in England and Wales raise more than £300 million a year from local rates. We often spend much greater time and possibly express ourselves with much greater vigour on matters the financial consequence of which are not as great as in the case of this Measure.
      I said on Second Reading that it was a little difficult to understand the almost unholy haste with which this Bill has been put through. It is quite clear that a remedy would have to be sought to the existing situation, but, in view of the difficulties that have continued since 1934, it would have seemed not unreasonable to have waited another six or nine months while the Minister and his officials studied the problem further and produced a more fundamental scheme. It seems to me, and, I think, to some of my hon. Friends, that the Minister has lost an opportunity of making a really important contribution to municipal finance.
      We can at least hope that this Bill is a little better than it was originally, and some of us welcome the provisions made in connection with what the

      1513
      Parliamentary Secretary called the "storage" Clause. There are nearly 8,000 of these adjuncts to hereditaments within the County of London alone, covering some 500 assessments, and the fact that they are now being included and fairly assessed is a very great improvement.
      With regard to Clause 2, however, we must still express considerable doubt as to whether this return to 1939 values is not only fair, but whether, indeed, it is workable. I wish very briefly to repeat what was said by the right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards). He said that we have had no evidence that 1939 values are to be a workable basis for assessment. Most of the technical evidence seems to be opposed to it. I shall not weary the House by repeating what I said in Committee upstairs on the view of the "Property Owners' Journal" on this point. The Minister has always seemed a bit vague himself concerning whether it would work. He said during the second day's Sitting of the Committee that it was up to the valuers. When I asked him about it, he said during the third Sitting of the Committee, that he had, perhaps, made the observation
      "in a somewhat frivolous way."
      He then went on to say:
      "What I meant was that Ministers are but dim and transient phantoms who flit across the stage, and these men who are unhappy enough to have devoted their lives to valuing will have to carry out this work long after I have forgotten all about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 30th June, 1953; c. 113.]
      One cannot help feeling that there was a certain sense of irresponsibility about this Bill as far as the Minister was concerned. Indeed, on one occasion he said that it was a great nuisance to have a Bill of this kind at all, and that he wanted to get on with other matters.
      Mr. Houghton: I am sure that my hon. Friend has not overlooked the fact that the Minister is in the "Daily Mirror" gallup poll for the succession of the Premiership, and may have had that in mind when he was speaking.
      Mr. Skeffington: Well, he talked about dim and transient phantoms which, of course, is a phrase capable of various interpretations and which, I am certain, would be out of order if I pursued them now.
      1514
      I wish to refer to two other matters before I conclude. The first is one to which reference was also made by the right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough and by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade)—the difficulty with which ratepayers will be faced when they want to contest the valuer's findings. Even with all the difficulties of the 1948 Act, people knew what the formula was. There was a certain definite measure of fact over which the dispute could range. But, by returning to 1939 values, it means that it is to be a valuer's opinion and guess work as against a ratepayer's opinion, and the facts may be extremely difficult or impossible to determine. I only hope that before the Bill becomes effective it may be possible to make public some of the instructions to valuers which the ordinary ratepayer can see so that he may have some idea how his rate will be assessed and how the valuer's interpretation of 1939 values is to be made.
      The second matter to which I wish to refer is one which I raised both during the Second Reading debate and in Committee, when I ventured to give some of the figures which resulted from a very careful investigation into the Hayes and Harlington district to find out what would be the effect of returning to 1939 values. The figures which I then quoted seemed to indicate a very considerable shift in the basis of assessment. In other words, the domestic ratepayer in this type of district is to be asked to bear a greater share of the rate burden.
      The Minister was good enough to say that he would look at them, and I have taken the opportunity of sending all the figures to the Parliamentary Secretary. It may be that we made some mistakes in our calculation, but, as Hayes and Harlington is a district composed very largely of new houses, I think that our valuations are likely to be right. It would appear that domestic properties are now to bear a greater share of the rate burden whereas industrial, commercial and licensed premises are all going to bear a lesser share. That seems to be a most extraordinary position.
      Sir G. Hutchinson: Has the hon. Gentleman any data which would show the additional burden that would fall upon the domestic ratepayers if current values instead of 1939 values were used?
      Mr. Skeffington: We have some evidence regarding that, although the analysis that we made was based on the present position which, of course, is based on the old pre-war 1925 Act; the valuation under the 1948 Act and the valuation under the present proposals. If we had current values, although there would be some shift in added burden upon the domestic ratepayer, there would be still more on commercial, industrial and licensed premises.
      Sir G. Hutchinson: The hon. Gentleman does appreciate, does he not, that under the 1948 Act and under this Bill industrial and commercial hereditaments are valued at current values?
      Mr. Skeffington: Yes, of course, but I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman has got my point. What is to happen under this particular set of proposals is that the incidence of assessment will shift still further against the domestic ratepayer. The domestic ratepayer will be paying more than he would have done under the 1948 Act or than he does at the present time.
      Sir G. Hutchinson rose—
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order. We are on Third Reading now.
      Mr. Skeffington: I have given way on two occasions, and I think that in the interests of the House I ought to bring my remarks to an end. All I hope is that the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to make some reference to this matter in his reply.
      Mr. Marples: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, I would remark that he was kind enough to send me a letter in which he emphasised his remarks in the Standing Committee. The conclusion which he drew about the effect of the Bill on his own constituency was not quite right. I did not think Third Reading was the time to give detailed reasons why he was wrong, and I shall, with his permission, write him a letter to show that it looks as though the rate burden on houses will be slightly reduced under the Bill from what it is today in Hayes and Harlington; but only slightly; not violently to cause suffering in other respects.
      4.41 p.m.
      Mr. Henry Brooke: A point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) is that we did a good job in the Standing Committee when we took steps to bring to the attention of the Government a difficulty which might otherwise have arisen over the pram sheds and storage sheds. I think all London Members will be grateful to the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) for having moved that Amendment. As he truthfully said, it is not only L.C.C. flats which will benefit, but Metropolitan borough council flats and possibly a number of private blocks of flats where there are these outlying buildings which might otherwise have had to be valued on a different basis.
      However, the most important step we took in Committee was to delete words which would, in effect, have made this a permanent Measure. We now have the immense advantage on Third Reading of examining it purely as a temporary one, and all of us on both sides of the House must be a great deal happier about its provisions on that account. The existing situation which this Bill is designed to alter is, by almost universal consent, not wholly satisfactory, and yet few of us, surely, would suggest that the 1939 valuation for dwelling-houses introduced in this Bill is a remedy to which we ought to give any sort of permanent approval.
      Quite frankly, I agree with the line that the Government have taken. I do not see any other practical alternative, but I am one of those who most sincerely hope that the 1939 basis will last for one valuation only, and that nothing will intervene, as events have intervened on previous occasions, to prevent us, after the next valuation, from passing legislation which will get the whole matter of valuation on to what I can only call a more realistic basis.
      I disagreed profoundly with the hon. Member on the Liberal Bench, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), who seemed to maintain that an altogether greater degree of certainty would be introduced into valuation if the rating of site values were brought in. The truth is that in all these matters of valuation for rating purposes we are

      1517
      inevitably moving in a somewhat conjectural field. That is one of the disadvantages of the whole rating system. It is having to carry an immense burden of local government finance now, and whereas in older and simpler days the burden could be managed, the possibilities of unfairness and uncertainty are now so great that one must feel much diffidence about continuing with the present rating arrangements as the sole basis for local government finance. Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson), I regret that neither this Government nor any previous Government since the war have taken steps to institute a thoroughgoing, objective inquiry into local government finance and the action which, I am quite certain, this House will have to take about that before many years are up.
      I have indicated that I look upon this Bill purely as a temporary solution. I agree it is odd how little attention the provisions of the Bill seem so far to have attracted, outside the technical Press, even though a great many people are going to be affected by them. In my own contituency it is not so surprising as it may be elsewhere, because Hampstead Borough Council, all the time it was a rating authority, was more meticulous in enforcing accurately the provisions of the law than, I would venture to say, some other authorities have been in past years, which have tempered the wind considerably to their own ratepayers and by this means lessened the contribution that their local citizens have had to make to county funds. For that reason I do not regard this as a Bill that is going to make a fundamental change affecting my own constituents. It will make some drastic changes elsewhere.
      I cannot at all follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington when he suggests that this Bill is going to shift the balance more against the occupier of the dwelling-house and in favour of the commercial occupier. It seems to me that the Bill is going to leave us with the next valuation definitely favouring the private house occupier as against the commercial occupier. But that is one of those difficulties from which there is no practical escape, because of the present artificial situation in the values of dwelling-houses, thanks, on the one hand, to the housing shortage, and, on the other,
      1518
      to the operation of the Rent Restriction Acts. It is quite impossible under these artificial conditions to achieve a wholly fair basis for everybody.
      I do not see any reason why the Government should be chid for having acted in any way hastily in introducing this Bill. I should have thought it was to everybody's advantage to have had a new basis for valuation on the Statute Book as soon as possible, so that present uncertainty could be brought to an end at an early date. I have no great liking for the provisions of this Bill, but I have heard nobody suggest better.
      4.50 p.m.
      Mr. Turner-Samuels: This Bill is a very poor thing but it may have very serious consequences. I hope that, although this is the Third Reading of the Bill, the House will give it the consideration it deserves and will not pass over lightly the serious defects which are prominent in it.
      I notice that from each of the three speakers we have had from the Government benches including the Minister himself, we have had apologies for the Bill. Each of them felt he had to say that the Bill was imperfect and inadequate, and the Minister tried to console himself by saying that if it served any purpose at all, it was merely a narrow one. This is a piece of patchwork legislation. It has been brought in for the purpose of postponing urgent problems and, as an expedient, to try to dispose of the present very serious situation in regard to valuation for rating. It is, therefore, not surprising that it fails in its purpose. As the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) said, it is not a permanent Measure, and it is quite obvious from its contents that it is not going to be of service even as a temporary Measure, for reasons which I shall give.
      I think that a good test of whether the Bill is a good or a bad one is the reaction to it from the local authorities. I believe that it is accurate to say that hardly any local authority welcomes this Bill and that practically every local authority has criticised it. The cool and chary response to it from that quarter may be no doubt to some extent due to the fact that the local authorities want to revert to the basic Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. They would like the system under that Act substantially restored. They also want to

      1519
      see the derating provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929, repealed. But these matters are not in order on the Third Reading of this Bill.
      A very serious defect in the Bill is a matter which I put to the Minister earlier while he was moving an Amendment. That was the question of when the 1939 rateable values are to apply. This is very important if we are not to add many more difficulties to those we already have. It seems to me that the Bill as it stands means this: That all proposals for inclusion of new houses which come in before the new list is made are to be based upon the present rental values instead of on the 1939 rental values which it is the object of this Bill to secure, and that, therefore, for some time to come this particular remedy contained in the Bill, which has been put forward as urgent and necessary, will not apply. We shall have the alleged defects of the present system multiplying instead of getting rid of them.
      It was obvious that the Minister saw that difficulty himself because he could not give a clear reply to the question I put to him on this point. In other words, instead of having a rental value basis as the Bill proposes, we shall have the cost basis which is operating at the present time. What makes it worse is that there is not even any certainty at all that the next quinquennial revaluation will not be postponed.
      Therefore, if that occurred, the whole value of the Bill and of these proposed remedies in it, would be completely lost. The main object of the Bill, as the Minister said in the Committee Stage, is to get a fairer method of assessment. I have every sympathy with the Minister in that objective, but unfortunately each new change in the rating system, instead of getting rid of injustice, has only added to the injustice. The attempts which had been made to get uniformity have merely resulted in more non-uniformity, and that will again be the effect of this Bill. Not only are we not going to get uniformity here, but we are not even going to get any form of consistency.
      This Bill will have precisely that defect because it provides the 1939 rental value as the basis for one type of hereditament and the current rental value as the basis for all other hereditaments. The Bill
      1520
      provides no yardstick at all for uniformity. That is one of the fundamental criticisms of the Bill. If we are to have some basis of uniformity, it seems to me that the local one would be much better than the doubtful one which is in the Bill.
      The Bill, in my submission, is vague and general, and it cannot possibly secure an equal or equitable measure of fairness in the system of valuation for rating. That is a very great defect in the Bill. I am sure that the Minister realises it. It was pretty obvious that he realised it when the Bill was in Committee. The Bill's general yardstick is absolutely useless. I put it to the Minister: How can he possibly say that the value of a house, for example, in Gloucester is necessarily going to be of the same value with an identical house in Manchester. It is impossible to say that. The same difficulty would apply if he were to value a cinema in Gloucester at X and say that it had the same value with an identical cinema in Manchester. He could not possibly say that those two cinemas necessarily had the same value for rating. That is one of the serious defects in this Bill.
      I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) that it would be far better to judge this question of valuation by a local yardstick rather than by a general one. I have pointed out that as regards the 1925 Act uniformity failed there. In the 1948 Act the cost basis also failed, and now the Minister is asking the House to go back to the system applicable in 1938 which, he says, has also broken down. That is the melancholy situation created by this Bill.
      The defects of the Bill are enormous, but I have not the time required to go into all of them. I should however like briefly to mention one or two of them. First, there is no clear system of safeguard under Clause 2 at all. When the Minister comes to reply I should like to hear him state any such system. He cannot do so. There is no safeguard that the 1939 rental value will be fair and workable. The Minister has in Committee admitted that there are disparities in the present rental value system, and it is clear that Clause 2 is not going to remedy that. There is no safeguard to relieve hardship in connection with the older houses, in which the Minister has admitted that the less prosperous people

      1521
      reside. Clause 2 in no way ensures that increased assessments will be fairly borne between different classes of houses, and the Bill gives no remedy to ratepayers to make the valuation list equitable.
      For those reasons and many others, which I hope will be mentioned by other hon. Members, I hope that the Opposition will divide against the Third Reading.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Gibson: I hope the Minister will not regard what I have to say as too ungracious in view of the way he met the points that I made during the Committee stage. Although the Amendments made then considerably improve the Bill, the Bill does nothing to ease the problems which bother local authorities and local ratepayers.
      I am glad that we have retained the central valuation system. If we had not done that, all hopes of anything approaching equity in valuation and assessment would have gone. But I am sure the valuers will have headaches when they are told to assume the 1939 rent—to assume that the present economic and social conditions existed in 1939—and then to determine what the rent should be in those circumstances. That system seems to contain as many difficulties as the one which is being discontinued.
      Surely in any fair system rates ought to be levied on the principle of ability to pay. Those who are very poor ought not to be expected to pay as large a proportion of their small incomes in rate charges as those who are well off, but that is what will happen under the Bill. Under the old system, the burden of rate charges fell very much more heavily the poorer the man and his family were, and the Bill means that we shall return to that system. I do not like the Bill because the position of the poorer ratepayer will be worse.
      As has already been said, the whole local government finance system should be looked at. There ought to be a full-scale inquiry. If present conditions continue for very many more years, local government finance will break down completely, and no one wants that to happen. I want local authorities to be given greater freedom to manage their own affairs, and I also want them to have greater freedom to raise their local income. I want that system to be fair to everybody, very much
      1522
      fairer than any rating system that we have so far had.
      Although it may not be in order on this Bill to make suggestions for completely new systems, we may note that in other parts of the world, and in parts of the British Commonwealth, rates are levied on site values. We should solve the financial problems of our local authorities if we got rid of the derating of industrial premises. It has been a curse to our local authorities. I am told that the borough which I represent loses £104,000 per year in income as a result of the derating of industrial premises. That is wrong. The borough has to spend the money, and this means that the income has to be raised from the poor devils who live in the small houses in the back streets. The Minister has chivvied us for not having proposed an alternative system. If it had been in order, some of us would have suggested alternatives.
      The point has been made that we have not had full evidence to justify a change from the 1948 system. There is a complaint to be made about this. We have had a lot of figures, but they have not been given to us in the form of a White Paper so that we can study them. We have been told that the system of valuing on the basis of the cost price of building and the cost price of land has failed, but none of us has been convinced by the evidence produced, and we certainly have not had time thoroughly to digest it. Time after time during the course of the Bill we have asked for that information, but we have not had it.
      On that basis alone, we are right to indicate our objection by voting against the Third Reading. I hope that in the near future we shall have a Government which will tackle the financial problems of our local authorities and bring about a radical reorganisation of their finances and our local government set-up as a whole.
      5.8 p.m.
      Mr. Charles Pannell: I wish to register a mild protest about the amount of time which has been devoted to the Bill. We have had seven or eight days to discuss the Central African Territories and related matters, but this Bill, which affects every householder and every ratepayer in the country, has had only about five and three-quarter hours on Second Reading, and three-quarters of an

      1523
      hour of that time was taken up by a couple of Scotsmen discussing English rating. If I intervene next week during the two days which have been allocated to the Scots. I hope that Mr. Speaker will not let any sense of tradition blind him to the fact that I have certain rights.
      The Scots have departed from their usual parochial attitude and have taken a wider interest than that of their own country, but neither of the hon. Members who gave us the benefit of their gratuitous advice on Second Reading were members of the Standing Committee. The Scots often suggest that they are badly treated here, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has suggested that the two-day debate for the Scots next week should be held in Edinburgh. I am sure you will agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I am in order in saying that, generally speaking, it appears to be the English and not the Scots or the Africans who suffer in the allocation of time in this House.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The allocation of time in this House does not appear in the Bill. It is a rating Bill.
      Mr. Pannell: I hope I am allowed to reflect upon the attitude of the "usual channels" to the allocation of time, which, after all, reflects the importance of the Measures which come before the House. It appears that two days are necessary for Scotland, but only five and three-quarter hours on this Bill, during which two Scotsmen gave us the benefit of their advice for three-quarters of an hour, are considered good enough for the ratepayers of this country.
      This Bill is an important one. It is not so dramatic as some other matters, but it will be dynamite when the new valuation takes place. Whenever revaluation has taken place in the past, despite all the speeches made on Second Reading, there has always been' a terrific scuffling and shuffling and much political, national and civic cowardice in facing up to the issues. As I have just heard an hon. Friend remark, it is cowardice all round.
      Mr. Houghton: There is no cowardice among tax-gatherers.
      Mr. Pannell: No, because a Minister is prepared to get up in this House and
      1524
      defend his staff. I am not, however, going to go far into that question. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport has just arrived. I may be tempted to go into the subject of driving tests, but I should certainly be out of order to raise that subject.
      This Bill is one of those Bills about which we can talk very glibly, but it will be reflected in the local authorities' finances. This Bill retains the principle of central valuation, and here as a good local government man I want to say that I agree with that. But central valuation, when it was introduced, was an indictment of the local authorities themselves, as it revealed their complete failure and incapacity to deal properly with this matter. I see the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) smiling, but he is looking at it from his lofty position as one of the vice-presidents of the Association of Municipal Corporations. I am speaking as a past chairman of a rating committee of one of those places like Hampstead, which has been referred to, that had the courage to levy a proper rate and has suffered a disadvantage thereby.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ilford, North said that the kernel of the problem is not valuation between county districts or counties but between counties and county boroughs. That is an under-statement. The kernel of the difficulty is between county borough and county borough and between county and county. It is no use talking about counties and county boroughs. What we have to face today is the difficulties meeting local authorities. I have had some experience of county valuations. We could not now take back the valuations from the central authority and give them to the local authorities. I remember when I was chairman of the valuation committee of the Walthamstow Borough Council—and that was 25 years ago—we carried out our rating duties in an exemplary manner, while in the borough of Ilford a few miles away they were very lax in this matter.
      Sir G. Hutchinson: I do not know what the hon. Member knows about Ilford, but Ilford was always most careful to carry out the law, and I fear that we may have suffered for it since.
      Mr. Pannell: The hon. and learned Member was never a member of Ilford

      1525
      Borough Council, was he? What does he know about it? I am talking about the days when I was a hard-working local politician, and it was a fact that the difference between Walthamstow and Ilford was all the difference between good and evil.
      In the old days there was considerable interference with local rating. There was what was known as sympathetic valuation, and all sorts of things cropped up. It was very difficult in the county to get an authority to make a proper valuation and so make its proper contribution to the county rate. It would have gone over to the Inland Revenue at some stage or the other, and it was handed over to the Board of Inland Revenue largely because of the proposed Exchequer grant.
      I remember hearing Mr. Henry Willink, when he was Minister of Health, saying at a local government conference that the finances of local government at the outbreak of war amounted to about £600 million as a global figure, £200 million being from rates, £200 million from trading undertakings and £200 million from grants in aid. What we have now, and what is effected by this Bill, is a great shift all round. Many of the industries have been nationalised, which has affected the rates and the whole basis of subsidy. As a matter of fact, we have got to the ridiculous position that, by derating, the local authorities have lost about £60 million, while the national Revenue has secured £27 million in Income Tax.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Member is now outside the scope of this Bill.
      Mr. Pannell: With very great respect, I do not think so. As I understand the rules of order, on the Third Reading I can speak of anything that is in the Bill itself, and surely we cannot consider the question of rating of houses and garages apart from the general rating system. If I went into a specific question like the equalisation grant, which is an ancillary subject, I would be out of order. I think it is well to point out that it would give colour to the Bill if it were not for the fact that we have got this curious sort of business of a subsidy in reverse. While the local authorities lose £60 million, £27 million is paid to the Treasury which ought to be going into the revenues of local authorities themselves. But in view
      1526
      of your warning, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will leave that subject alone.
      What are the difficulties of the present rating system? Generally the amount paid is in the inverse ratio to the benefits received. Let me give an example. The highest sewerage rate in the country is at Burton-on-Trent, where it is three or four times higher than the average for the whole country. That is because there are so many brewery interests there, and this state of affairs arises through derating. That is why I say that the amount paid is the inverse ratio of the benefits received. The present rating system is based on an unfair and unscientific basis, the hypothetical rent paid for a certain hereditament, and to arrive at that figure we have to go back 15 years. The date in the Bill is the 30th June, 1939, and, of course, there is a different scheme for industrial hereditaments and shops. Because of that inconsistency, it cannot be said that the system is rational.
      The present rating system has no regard to the income of the person who is liable for payment. Since 1830 the rating system has been based on property. In the 19th Century the type of house which a man lived in was, broadly speaking, a reasonable reflection of his wealth. Nowadays, people might prefer service flats, motor cars, and all sorts of other things to big houses, and the type of accommodation that a man occupies is, therefore, no longer a reflection of his ability to pay. A man who has a large family of children will be taking the children's allowances with one hand and paying it away in rates with the other hand.
      Many people who vote do not pay rates. If they do, they do so only indirectly and with no conscious knowledge of the amount that they pay. When the basis of voting for local elections was altered, it was done on the basis of the enormous subsidies that go into local government, and that all paid taxes. In effect, the rating system is now no longer linked to people who are immediately interested in the figure of the rates.
      Nobody can deny that administratively the rating system is shockingly clumsy compared with P.A.Y.E., which laps up the tax money each week from the man who works hard but allows the big Income Tax dodger to go free. The present rating system does not provide a uniform level of local government services

      1527
      throughout the country, because the rating capacity of an area is subject to local economic disturbances, such as unemployment. No one can say that the present rating system can provide sufficient money for the present range of local government services without a wide variety of local government grants. Directly a central Government grant is given, the autonomy of the local authority is weakened. That is the difficulty that we are in.
      I remember introducing a local authority Budget in 1938 for a small county district, which at that time controlled 54 per cent. of the expenditure on the rate demand. Eleven years later, my successor was levying a rate only 27 per cent. of which was controlled by the local authority. That loss of revenue and diminution of rate control indicates the rot that has set in with local government.
      Government grants give a volume of administrative work both locally and nationally and lessen local freedom of action. The system by which the Government pay an increasing part of the burden by way of Government grant, while local authorities are denied the revenue to pay their own part, has resulted in an enormous increase in administration, notably among the white collar boys. Broadly speaking, the country must be built up economically by the people and the wealth that they produce. Every business efficiency expert would agree that the overhead expenses must be kept to a minimum.
      What we want is a system which is economic in manpower and in collection. I shall vote against the Bill as a protest against its being merely another factor in the disarray of the design of local government which we have had twice before, and in the hope that before the next valuation a saner and more scientific system will have been introduced for the benefit of the ratepayers.
      The Minister speaks about the reform of local government in 1955 or 1956. In effect, the whole of his philosophy is never to do anything today in local government if it can possibly be deferred until tomorrow. That is the sort of thing that we must protest against. The
      1528
      rot set in some time ago, and radical reforming is needed, and this matter brooks no further delay.
      5.26 p.m.
      Mr. Houghton: I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) in his grand sweep across the economics, finances and complexities of local administration. I shall try to confine my remarks to the Bill, and to make them brief. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the compliment that he paid me in his opening speech. I do not seek to deny him any good natured glee that he may have derived from the embarrassment which he undoubtedly caused me. I have throughout consistently expressed my point of view on the Bill. I have declared my interest in the staff who are employed in connection with the valuation, and I hope that the House will bear with me while I make my concluding remarks on the Bill.
      The first thing I want to say concerns a remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) regarding the haste with which he suggested this new Measure had been brought forward. I remind my hon. Friend and the House that it is now 18 months at least since my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) suspended work on the valuation of dwelling-houses and switched the considerable staff employed on that job to the assessment of business and similar premises.
      That work of assessment of business and similar premises is now far advanced. Were it not for the clearance which the Bill will give to further progress on the assessment of dwellinghouses, a wasteful period of inactivity would be confronting the valuation staff. My hon. Friend will, therefore, appreciate that to delay this Measure for another nine months would have been very uneconomic of the time and effort of a very large staff. Some 5,000 people in the valuation offices of the Inland Revenue are almost wholly engaged on this task.
      Reference has been made to the lack of public interest in what the House is doing in the Bill. We can excuse the public for their inability to be interested in something which is rather shielded from them. The public do not know what the 1948 Act would have done to them, and they do not know what the Bill will do

      1529
      to them. Our difficulty has been to disclose, for the information of all interested citizens, whether technical experts or ratepayers, precisely what we are having to discard, why we are having to discard it, what we are putting in its place, and what change we are bringing about.
      The first thing in that connection which we must stress again and again is the change from local to central valuation, which the Bill retains. I am supported in graphic terms in this matter by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), to whom I would frequently go for doctrine, even if not for administration. In Standing Committee B, on 16th December, 1947, my right hon. Friend said:
      "As I tried to explain on Second Reading, in dealing with rating and valuation, especially of cottage property, we are not talking about objective, mathematical, dispassionate principles of valuation. Valuation is as much an art as a science, and we want to ensure that the same kind of artists are applying the same kind of criteria all over the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 16th December, 1947; c. 1725.]
      Here we have it. We retain the central control and direction of the artists and, in this Bill, we replace the dual criteria for one criterion so far as valuation of dwelling-houses is concerned.
      Some hon. Friends have criticised our return, as they put it, to pre-war values. We have never escaped from pre-war values in regard to the valuation of dwelling-houses. The only single particular in which Part IV of the 1948 Act departed from pre-war values, whether of costs, hypothetical costs, building costs, or site values, was in regard to the hypothetical value of the post-1918 local authority house. All the rest, the hypothetical cost of construction and the hypothetical site value were related to pre-war prices. The basis of valuation of the pre-1918 house was related to the prevailing level of pre-war rents. We have never escaped from pre-war values; therefore there can be no going back to something we have never left.
      It is true that we have altered the basis of pre-war valuations for the purposes of this Bill, but the only current values in the whole structure of valuation under the 1948 Act was the valuation of business and similar premises, and this Bill does nothing to disturb that. An hon. Member opposite referred to shocks which people would get, but there
      1530
      will be more shocks under the 1948 Act, which still retains the 1925 basis of valuation of business premises, than shocks for the occupiers of dwelling-houses.
      Mr. J. Edwards: May I ask how my hon. Friend knows that?—perhaps he will give us some figures.
      Mr. Dalton: There are no figures from the Government, perhaps my hon. Friend can help us.
      Mr. Houghton: The one criticism I have to make of the Government in this matter is that they have not given the House the benefit of the abundant material at their disposal to prove their case absolutely up to the hilt. They have not been doing these pilot surveys for all this time without having gathered a very substantial body of evidence, of which we have seen only the smallest sample. My right hon. Friend asks how I know—there is a simple test to apply. The valuation of business and similar premises on current values under the 1925 Act in the hands of Inland Revenue valuers means current values. Any occupier of business or similar premises who likes to make a comparison between his rate demand note and the rent he is paying will see the sort of shock that is coming to him. We need not put it any differently from that.
      Valuers will be assessing premises on the current values and the index to current values will be current rents. There is no mystery about that; one does not need to have inside information to be able to tell the business community what sort of change is coming to them on the current value for rates. But when hon. Members see a shift of the emphasis of the rate burden from business premises to the occupiers of dwelling-houses, I say that there is nothing of the sort in the Bill. It follows from the fact that we are retaining prewar valuation for dwelling-houses as against current values for business premises that the shift is going to be all in the other direction, which I think will make for greater equity in the distribution of the rate burden. At present the occupier of a dwelling-house is bearing a disproportionate share of the rate burden because the assessments of business premises have not been brought up to date. I do hope we shall get this into its proper perspective.

      1531
      Some reference has been made to a leading article in "The Times" this morning. I read "The Times" every morning and, like my hon. and right hon. Friends, I agree with it when it suits me and disagree with it when it does not. But who has ever said that "The Times" newspaper is an authority on rating? Since when have they qualified to pontificate to the world about the basis of valuation? I know that they hanker, as we all hanker, after putting the valuations on a more realistic and more up-to-date basis. But I pose the simple question without going into a lot of technical detail, what would be the basis of valuation of an owner-occupied house today if we applied current values? Would it be the controlled rent of the house next door, or the uncontrolled rent of the house next door but one? That is the sort of question which obviously would send us into hypothetical values or into averaging out values, if we were to take current values as the basis of valuation.
      We come to the stage when we part with the Bill with all its imperfections and possibilities of trouble for the future. I said in the very short intervention I made on Second Reading that this was not a perfect solution, nor did I think it could be a lasting solution to the problem. The change we have made during the Committee stage upstairs by deleting the words, "in subsequent lists" emphasises the fact that, after the first lists come out, we can all take fresh stock of what we have done and see whether we have a workable basis or not.
      That, I think, will have to satisfy all reasonable people on a Bill which, I agree, the Minister had to introduce because of the problems he encountered and which my right hon. Friend encountered in the operation of the 1948 Act.
      If there is anyone who can make a good workable job of this difficult task I think the valuation staff of the Inland Revenue will do it. At least they will try very hard to produce a satisfactory solution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Since that is likely to be the only applause I shall get from the benches on this side of the House, I think the time has come to conclude my speech.
      5.38 p.m.
      Mr. James MacColl: I think it would be very unfortunate if the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) were the final contribution on the Bill from this side of the House. I do not mind my hon. Friend supporting the somewhat wavering flanks of the Parliamentary Secretary, but what I do not like is the great enthusiasm and pleasure he gets from doing so.
      I wish my hon. Friend had addressed himself a little more carefully in Committee and in the debate today to the real gravamen of the criticisms made in considerable detail from this side of the House on the Bill and what it sets out to do. It is all very well for him to laugh at "The Times" and those of us who are laymen, and ask what we know of valuation. Our job is to know what should be done.
      We can only do that on the basis of information but neither my right hon. Friend nor the Parliamentary Secretary has given that information and we cannot make an evaluation of the difficulties and the best way of dealing with them without information. The only specific piece of information about valuation which we have been given by the Parliamentary Secretary is that the 1948 Act produced a fairly coherent system within the class of the houses it deals with. That is the only consistent thing there is over this whole field, the rest of it having been distorted on entirely subjective and political grounds.
      My hon. Friend has given the impression that this Bill is something going back to a clearly defined thing called 1939 values, something which people will understand. But that is not the case. The Bill cannot go back to 1939 values because it would be quite anomalous. In two substantial respects it has introduced a quite arbitrary conception, in the case of the newly developed area and the idea of a hypothetical town existing in 1953 which did not exist in 1939. It is nonsense to say to the unfortunate ratepayer who wishes to understand on what basis he is rated that he will be able to look at the rent book and find the answer. He will have to look back, make a comparison with 1939 and, it may be, see who was his

      1533
      next-door neighbour, That is not valuation, it is crystal gazing. It is a guess at the answer.
      The other material factor introduced into the Bill in Committee and which causes distortion is this adjustment of scarcity value. An adjustment has to be made on the 1939 figures to see what they would have been had there been a scarcity value due to the existence of rent control on other houses. If the House finds this difficult to understand I do not think that is my fault, for it is an exceedingly incomprehensible subsection.
      Our complaint is if all these subjective, arbitrary variations are to be introduced why should not the Government pluck up courage and make the whole basis that of current values, with the various qualifications which have to be made in any case. That would be somewhere near achieving uniformity of values for all types of hereditaments with a reasonable chance of carrying them on in the future.
      How far are the figures coming forward due to valuation being carried out centrally? Whatever system of valuation has been introduced, the change from local to central valuation was bound to introduce anomalies and a sense of annoyance among ratepayers who are badly hit. However right the system may be, once adjustments are made from local to central valuation there are bound to be complaints from people who say that their houses previously had a low valuation
      and now have a high one, because instead of there being a quiet local assessment committee there are now the valuers from the Inland Revenue. How far that causes trouble is one of the things that the experts have not bothered to tell us.
      Sooner or later we have to bring valuation up to current values; we cannot go on indefinitely anchoring them to 1939. At some time we must face these problems. What went wrong with the 1948 Measure was the assumption that 1948 post-war values were temporary and that we should get somewhere between them and the pre-war level. Now we know that is not so. We have a permanent and completely new scale of values and sooner or later we have to bring local taxation up to those values. That is bound to present an extremely difficult problem.
      Instead of facing up to the problem the Government have tried to compromise. They have introduced a completely individual personal assessment of value instead of something which is clear and easily understood. It will cause a sense of injustice among ratepayers, who will feel that they have been valued not on something which can be measured, but on something which exists only in the inflamed imaginations of Inland Revenue valuers.
      Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
      The House divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 162.

      Division No. 220.]

      AVES

      [5.46 p.m.

      Aitken, W. T.

      Butcher, Sir Herbert

      Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

      Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

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

      Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

      Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

      Campbell, Sir David

      Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

      Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J

      Carr, Robert

      Fell, A.

      Arbuthnot, John

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Finlay, Graeme

      Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

      Channon, H.

      Fisher, Nigel

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

      Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

      Fleetwood-Hesketh, R.

      Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

      Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

      Ford, Mrs. Patricia

      Banks, Col. C.

      Colegate, W. A.

      Fort, R.

      Barber, Anthony

      Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

      Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

      Barlow, Sir John

      Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

      Baxter, A. B.

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

      George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

      Beach, Maj. Hicks

      Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. D. E.

      Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

      Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

      Crouch, R. F.

      Graham, Sir Fergus

      Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

      Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

      Gridley, Sir Arnold

      Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

      Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

      Grimond, J,

      Bishop, F. P.

      Cuthbert, W. N.

      Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

      Black, C. W.

      Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

      Davidson, Viscountess

      Hare, Hon. J. H.

      Boyle, Sir Edward

      Deedes, W. F.

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.

      Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

      Dodds-Parker, A. D.

      Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

      Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

      Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

      Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

      Donner, Sir P. W.

      Harvie-Watt, Sir George

      Brooman-White, R. C.

      Doughty, C. J. A.

      Heald, Sir Lionel

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

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

      Heath, Edward

      Bullard, D. G.

      Drewe, Sir C.

      Higgs, J. M. C.

      Burden, F. F. A.

      Dugdale, Rt. Hon Sir T. (Richmond)

      Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

      Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

      Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

      Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

      Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

      Marlowe, A. A. H.

      Scott, R. Donald

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Marples, A. E.

      Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

      Holland-Martin, C. J.

      Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

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

      Hollis, M. C.

      Maude, Angus

      Snadden, W. McN.

      Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

      Maudling, R.

      Spearman, A. C. M.

      Hope, Lord John

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

      Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

      Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

      Medlicott, Brig. F

      Stevens, G. P.

      Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

      Mellor, Sir John

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

      Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

      Molson, A. H. E.

      Storey, S.

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

      Morrison, John (Salisbury)

      Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

      Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

      Neave, A. M. S.

      Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

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

      Nicholls, Harmar

      Studholme, H. G.

      Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

      Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

      Summers, G. S.

      Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

      Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

      Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

      Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

      Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

      Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

      Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

      Nugent, G. R. H.

      Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

      Jones, A. (Hall Green)

      Nutting, Anthony

      Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

      Kaberry, D.

      Oakshott, H. D.

      Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

      Keeling, Sir Edward

      O' Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

      Touche, Sir Gordon

      Kerr, H. W.

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

      Turton, R. H.

      Lambton, Viscount

      Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

      Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

      Law, Rt. Han. R. K.

      Partridge, E.

      Wade, D. W.

      Leather, E. H. C.

      Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

      Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

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

      Peto, Brig. C. H. M

      Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. Marylebone)

      Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

      Peyton, J. W. W.

      Walker-Smith, D. C.

      Linslead, Sir H. N.

      Pilkington, Capt. R. A

      Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

      Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

      Pitman, I. J.

      Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

      Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

      Pitt, Miss E. M.

      Wellwood, W.

      Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C

      Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. D. L

      Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

      Longden, Gilbert

      Raikes, Sir Victor

      Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

      Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Redmayne, M.

      Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

      McCallum, Major D.

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Wills, G.

      McKibbin, A. J.

      Remnant, Hon. P.

      Wood, Hon. R.

      Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

      Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

      Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

      Roper, Sir Harold

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Maclean, Fitzroy

      Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

      Mr. Vosper and

      Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

      Russell, R. S.

      Mr. Richard Thompson.

      Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

      Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

      NOES

      Albu, A. H.

      Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

      McKay, John (Wallsend)

      Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

      Follick, M.

      McLeavy, F.

      Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

      Foot, M. M.

      MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

      Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R

      Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

      Awbery, S. S.

      Gailskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

      Manuel, A. C.

      Bacon, Miss Alice

      Gibson, C. W.

      Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

      Bartley, P.

      Glanville, James

      Mayhew, C. P.

      Bence, C. R.

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

      Mellish, R. J.

      Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

      Grey, C. F.

      Messer, Sir F.

      Benson, G.

      Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

      Mitchison, G. R

      Beswick, F

      Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

      Moody, A. S

      Bing, G. H. C.

      Hannan, W.

      Morley, R.

      Blackburn, F.

      Hargreaves, A.

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

      Blenkinsop, A.

      Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

      Moyle, A.

      Blyton, W. R.

      Hastings, S.

      Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

      Boardman, H.

      Hayman, F. H.

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

      Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

      Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

      Oliver, G. H.

      Bowles, F. G.

      Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

      Oswald, T.

      Brockway, A. F.

      Herbison, Miss M.

      Paget, R. T.

      Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

      Hobson, C. R.

      Palmer, A. M. F.

      Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

      Holman, P.

      Pannell, Charles

      Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

      Hoy, J. H.

      Pargiter, G. A.

      Brown, Thomas (Ince)

      Hubbard, T. F.

      Parker, J.

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

      Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

      Plummer, Sir Leslie

      Champion, A. J.

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Popplewell, E.

      Clunie, J.

      Hynd, H. (Accrington)

      Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

      Proctor, W. T.

      Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

      Pryde, D. J.

      Cullen, Mrs. A

      Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

      Pursey, Cmdr. H.

      Daines, P.

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

      Reeves, J.

      Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

      Johnson, James (Rugby)

      Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

      Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

      Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

      Rhodes, H.

      Davies, Harold (Leek)

      Keenan, W.

      Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

      Deer, G.

      Kenyon, C.

      Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

      Delargy, H. J.

      Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Dodds, N. N.

      King, Dr. H. M

      Ross, William

      Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

      Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

      Shackleton, E. A. A.

      Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

      Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

      Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

      Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

      Lewis, Arthur

      Short, E. W.

      Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

      Lingren, G. S.

      Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

      Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

      Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

      Skeffington, A. M.

      Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

      MacColl, J. E.

      Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

      Fernyhough, E.

      McInnes, J.

      Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

      1536

      1537

      Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

      Thornton, E.

      Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

      Smith. Norman (Nottingham, S.)

      Tomney, F.

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

      Sorensen, R. W.

      Turner-Samuels, M.

      Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

      Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

      Weitzman, D.

      Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

      Sparks, J. A.

      Wells, Percy (Faversham)

      Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

      Steele, T.

      Wheatley, Rt Hon. John

      Wyatt, W. L.

      Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

      Wheeldon, W. E.

      Yates, V. F.

      Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

      White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

      Younger, Rt Hon K

      Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

      Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

      Sylvester, G. O.

      Wigg, George

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

      Wilkins, W. A

      Mr. Wallace and

      Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

      Willey, F. T.

      Mr. John Taylor.

      Question put, and agreed to.

      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

NEW TOWNS [MONEY]
Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the amount of advances which may be made to development corporations under section twelve of the New Towns Act, 1946, it is expedient to authorise any increase, attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session raising to one hundred and fifty million pounds the limit of one hundred million pounds imposed in respect of such advances by subsection (1) of the said section twelve (as amended by the New Towns Act, 1952), in the sums which, under or by virtue of the said Act of 1946 or section two of the Licensed Premises in New Towns Act, 1952, are to be or may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, raised by borrowing, remitted or paid into the Exchequer.
Resolution agreed to.

NEW TOWNS BILL
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
5.57 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I should not like the Third Reading stage of this Bill to go by without saying a few words, and giving the House some account of the progress made last month, because, in this Bill, we are asking for a large sum of money, and I think the House would be interested to know of the progress made. Since I spoke on Tuesday last week, the results for last month have come in, and they show that 626 more houses have been completed, one further factory of 12,580 square feet at Harlow, and one more church at Hemel Hempstead.
Since the previous occasion on which I spoke, I have also taken the opportunity to visit Newton Aycliffe, one of the new towns in the North-East, where a very charming and enthusiastic band of people who are running the new town showed me what they had done. I am now able to answer a query by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) which I could not answer on the occasion of the Second Reading debate. The right hon. Gentleman asked me how the supply of public houses was progressing in Newton Aycliffe and Peterlee. I cannot tell him about Peterlee, because I did not visit it, but in Newton Aycliffe they have got up to ground floor level with a public-house which they are erecting there. The cellarage was complete, and I inspected it most carefully, because I am anxious to see that the alcohol sold there is of a reasonably high standard.
Mr. James Hudson: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by a high standard?
Mr. Marples: A standard which would be approved by most hon. Members of this House, excepting, of course, the hon. Gentleman.
They have also decided what they will call the public house, and I was told that it is to be named "The Iron Horse." I wondered why this name was chosen, and I asked if it was possibly named after the very determined character of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, but apparently that is not so. It has been called after the second locomotive which pulled the first passenger train past the site of the new town, and a model of the original engine is being placed on top of the building. The site, in fact, is a rather unfortunate place, but I will not go into that now, though we may take the matter up with the Corporation. It is certainly not in the best of places.

1539
In addition, there are 666 more houses under construction, four more factories—
Mr. J. Hudson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a further question about "The Iron Horse "? Did he see any of the arrangements that were decided upon by this House that there should be places where there would be no alcoholic liquor sold at all?
Mr. Marples: No, I did not make that inquiry.
Mr. Hudson: What a pity.
Mr. Marples: There are four more factories, covering 55,600 square feet, under construction, five more shops and one community centre also under construction at Harlow. Since the House is interested in schools, I can say that three more schools and one technical college have been begun—one school at Harlow, two at Peterlee and the technical college at Peterlee as well. As we were making good progress I thought the House would pardon a short intervention by me to give them a report.
6.1 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Dalton: We are very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for telling us the position up to the minute. I hope that his Department will press on with the construction of community buildings of all kinds. We are glad to hear of progress that has been made here and there, but there is great danger to the contentment of the people in the new towns unless they get a much larger number of community buildings of one sort or another established very soon. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can assure us that his Department will have that point well in mind.
Mr. Marples indicated assent.
6.3 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Maitland: A question which I put to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in an earlier debate did not receive a complete answer, and I should like to raise the point again at this stage. The Government made it clear in the opening debate on the Bill that they were determined to develop the new towns as balanced communities.
1540
I put to my right hon. and gallant Friend the question what the Government would do if they were unable to get all the industry to the new towns that they would like, and whether, when housebuilding had reached the extent required by the available industry, it would stop, and the effort would be concentrated in the expanding towns.
By way of reply I was advised by my right hon. and gallant Friend not to be too despondent about the prospect of the new town in which I was particularly interested, namely East Kilbride. But I have since found, in conversation with other hon. Members who also represent constituencies with new towns in them, that the failure to give me a reply has caused anxiety. Without wishing to delay the House unduly I would repeat my question, in the confidence that in due course a full and satisfactory answer will be forthcoming.
6.4 p.m.
Mr. Græme Finlay: Another issue was also raised in the Second Reading debate to which we have not yet had a satisfactory reply. In speeches by hon. Members who are associated with new towns I thought there was a great deal of doubt whether the principal object of the new towns, that is to say the decongestion of the Metropolis, was being effected. It emerged that a kind of Box-and-Cox game takes place, and that when industries are evacuated to the new towns they are immediately replaced by other industries. That affects directly the principle of the new towns, and I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend are considering the matter very deeply. We should like to have an indication of the steps which are to be taken to deal with this very serious matter.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Are we to have a progress report for Scotland, similar to that given for England? Why should we not have a similar report about the number of churches, public houses and buildings going up in Scotland? Two Ministers present are responsible for Scottish affairs. Housing is just as important in Scotland as it is in England, and I hope that we shall have a progress report.
6.6 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): If the hon. Gentleman will consult the latest returns in relation to Scottish housing he will find all the figures enumerated there. To my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) I have already given a full answer to the question which he raised. Matters are proceeding very satisfactorily at the moment, and we need not look upon the prospect with dismal forebodings.
Mr. W. R. Williams: Before the Joint Under-Secretary of State sits down, will he say whether the figures to which he referred make a distinction between the new towns and other towns? Is the distinction made in that way about housing development?
Commander Galbraith: The figures for various towns are given.
Mr. Williams: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman reminded my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that if he would look in a certain direction we would get the information. Can my hon. Friend get the information that he wants, which is the development of housing in the new towns in Scotland?
Mr. Patrick Maitland: Further to what my right hon. and gallant Friend has said, may I ask him, since I may not have explained my question clearly, whether it is Government policy, in pursuance of the aim of an evenly-balanced community, to keep housebuilding equal with factory building?
The Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): That point does not arise on the Bill, which simply asks for an increase in the amount of the money advanced.
Mr. Maitland: Is this not a debate on new towns, and is one not entitled to ask a question about new towns?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Bill only asks for an increased amount of money. It was the original Act which gave the authority for the new towns.
6.7 p.m.
Mr. James H. Hoy: It is true that the Bill only asks for more money, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who represents the English side of
1542
this matter, gave a pretty comprehensive report about what was happening. My hon. Friend asked whether we could have a similar statement in regard to the new towns in Scotland. The Parliamentary Secretary must be aware that there has been criticism of the building taking place in these areas and that only this week, in evidence before the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs, a witness raised points with regard to the building of churches in the Scottish new towns.
The Minister might take advantage of this occasion to say something about development in the new areas. The point has been raised acutely in connection with the problem of providing employment in the new towns for the families of miners who go there to work. I hope it is not asking the Minister too much for him to say whether it is the Government's intention to link up the Scottish new towns with the other side of the Forth by means of a Forth road bridge.
6.9 p.m.
Mr. J. A. Sparks: I am sure that the House will welcome the passing of the Bill and the granting of an additional £50 million for the development work carried on by the development corporations. This money is not to be used wholly for housing development. It will be largely used for that purpose, but it is intended to cover industrial development as well. Probably the Parliamentary Secretary will not be able to give us the information now, but it would be useful if he could at some time indicate the probable proportioning of the £50 million between housing development and industrial development. We have not had the information, and we are left in the dark to some extent as to what division is being made between housing construction and industrial construction.
I ask him to consider another matter. This additional £50 million, indeed the whole of the money granted to the development corporations, will be advanced at a rate of interest paid by the corporations. In recent months, a great deal of confusion has arisen from variation in the interest rates charged. The corporations, in the middle of partially developed draft schemes, before even they have sought approval for the development scheme, must take into consideration the financial implications of the development

1543
of that scheme and the rate of interest chargeable, which is a very important matter.
If half way through the development of the scheme they find that the rate of interest goes up, it completely throws out of balance the financing of the whole scheme. An industrialist may be prepared to come to a new town and take a factory at an agreed rent, and then the development corporation may find itself faced with increased interest charges and financially deficient to develop its scheme, in which case it would have to go to the industrialist and say, "When we started, we thought that the figure quoted to you as the rent of the factory was the correct figure, but now that the interest rates have gone up we shall have to ask you to pay a higher rent."
I am quite sure that a number of developments have fallen through because of the change in the financing of them as a result of unexpected changes in the interest rate. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that his Department should consider this very important principle, and that when a development corporation submits a development scheme to the Minister and he approves it—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is a very simple Bill asking for an increase of £50 million. The principle has already been agreed to.
Mr. Sparks: Yes, but if I may say so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, before this £50 million can be spent it has to be submitted in the form of development schemes to the Minister for his approval. It is not automatically handed to the development corporations with instructions to spend it. Before it can be spent, the Minister has to approve development schemes incurring the expenditure of the money.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is done under the New Towns Act, 1946, as amended by the New Towns Act, 1952, but that has already been agreed to by the House.
Mr. Sparks: I must, of course, be guided by your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I shall not enlarge on the point any further. However, I can assure the House and the Parliamentary Secretary that this is a matter which is causing
1544
some difficulty to the development corporations in carrying out their work. If it is possible for the Minister, under existing legislation, to fix the rate of interest to be charged for the loan to be advanced when he approves the development scheme, it would greatly assist the development corporations in carrying out their work and in spending this extra money to the best advantage of all concerned.
6.14 p.m.
Mr. W. R. Williams: On a point of order. I must try and get the Scottish position clear. I am assuming, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that some of this money will go to Scotland and Wales as well as to England. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said something about the North-East, but he was very uncommunicative even about that. There is a new town in South Wales, but we have had nobody from the office of the Home Department and Welsh Affairs to say a word about it.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has refused point blank to give any information to this House today. Indeed, he was rather rude to this House when he suggested that we should look elsewhere for information which, in our opinion, we are entitled to have when a matter of this sort is placed before us. I think, therefore, that we should have an explanation both from the office of the Home Department and Welsh Affairs and from the Scottish Office as to why they have not given the House more information.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised questions as a point of order, and my answer to him is that if anybody tried to answer his points they would be out of order.
6.16 p.m.
Mr. A. C. Manuel: The material point in the Bill with which we have to deal is that the sum is being increased from £100 million to £150 million. Of course, as Scotsmen, we immediately want to know what proportion we are going to get of that £150 million. How is it to be apportioned? Are we going to have the Goschen formula again, or is the division of the money to be in the same ratio as the Exchequer equalisation grant as between Wales and Scotland, and so on? I join

1545
with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and with my hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) in asking that we may have a fuller statement from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
A second point that requires clarification is the relation of the Government's policy to increased costs to local authorities generally, and to new towns in particular, where there has been a special urge to build new houses, etc. If the Government's policy has increased interest charges, is it because of that policy that they are now having to bring in this Bill and to ask for more money in order to keep the work turning over in these new towns? That is a most material point.
I want to know whether, in connection with the development of these new towns, the Government have been giving any advice to the corporations in regard to, say, East Kilbride. Can the Minister say what proportion of the building operations there have been carried out by direct labour as against contract work?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is completely out of order on this Motion. I really will not allow the Minister to answer that question. This is a very simple Bill, and we cannot go into these details.
Mr. Manuel: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in every way, but I thought that, as we were dealing with an increase in the sum from £100 million to £150 million, I should be in order if I could prove that if this building operation were done by direct labour the extra money would not be needed.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, I think that would have been in order when we were passing Section 12 of the New Towns Act, 1946, but it is not in order now.
Mr. Manuel: I am sorry that I cannot pursue the matter further, but I hope that, while keeping in order, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will voluntarily give us all the help he can concerning the questions which we are posing to him.
6.19 p.m.
Commander Galbraith: With permission, and in view of the great interest displayed not only by Scottish, but by
1546
English and Welsh Members also, in the manner in which we are going ahead with our new towns in Scotland, perhaps I may be allowed to give the House the latest information available to me and which, fortunately, I have beside me. In East Kilbride, the expenditure has amounted to £3,132,000, and in Glenrothes to £1,302,000, a total expenditure of £4,434,000. In addition to that, money committed but not actually spent on East Kilbride amounts to £1,829,000, and on Glenrothes to £947,000, a total of £2,776,000, so that the total, both planned and committed, is £7,210,000. I hope that that is satisfactory.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is not what we asked for.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member has already spoken on this point.
Mr. Hughes: If I may have the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, might I ask whether the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland could not have made a similar statement with respect to Scotland? In the first place he gave us certain statistics, and then he decided that we were entitled to a further explanation, but he did not give us anything like the graphic explanation which was given by the Minister responsible for the English Department.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PLOUGHING GRANTS
6.21 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move,
That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.
Substantially this Scheme contains the same conditions as the second Scheme which came to an end on 31st May. There are three small differences to which I should call attention. There are two small alterations in Part I of the Scheme. One occurs in paragraph 3 (1) which gives the Minister power to agree to a summer fallow in suitable cases. That is to say, that the ploughing can be done in one year and the sowing in the next.

1547
The other small alteration is to tighten up conditions slightly where re-seeding is to be allowed, and that is done by excluding from the meaning of crops a fodder crop which has been under-sown with grass-seeds. The other small Amendment is in Part II of the Scheme in paragraph 7, which slightly widens the Minister's power to make grants before the crop is finally sown under the £10 an acre grant. Otherwise the Scheme is the same as the one that has been running in the previous 12 months.
I should just say a few words about the operation of the Scheme in the past 12 months. I think the House would wish to know how it has been working. I am not able to give precise figures as to the working of Part I of the Scheme until we have seen the collation of the agricultural returns for 4th June, and that will not be for another two or three weeks, so that I am not able to give an exact figure for the present tillage acreage and, therefore, the net increase that may have occurred over the past 12 months. I can only say that the indications from the 4th March returns of farmers' crops forecast are that there will be some increase in tillage in spite of the fact that we have lost some 60,000 acres this year from the flooded area on the East Coast.
Part II of the Scheme is working satisfactorily. It began on 1st August last year and, therefore, has had only 10 months to run. We have in England and Wales an increase of 64,000 acres under the £10 an acre part of the Scheme and a further 1,500 acres in Northern Ireland. I am hopeful that if this Scheme is continued for an further 12 months we may very well achieve some further 50,000 to 100,000 acres.
I think it is fair to say that that is a complete net gain in tillage acreage and, broadly speaking, in food production. Much of that land is doing little or nothing now. A good deal of it consists of outworn derelict orchards and so on, which without this assistance would not be brought into cultivation, and which, once brought into cultivation, is very rich land and, therefore, is a thoroughly good proposition from the point of view of the nation generally and the farmer in particular. It seems that this innovation, as it was last year, of the £10 an acre grant for land which had been under
1548
grass since 1939 has proved to be a useful practical measure. That gives a brief report on how the Scheme has been working.
I think it is fair to say that these ploughing grants are proving a very valuable assistance to us not only in maintaining tillage acreage but in continuing to get some increase. It is fair to judge this achievement against the background of the downward trend in tillage which began in 1948, and continued in 1949 and 1950 until in 1951 the trough of the downward trend occurred with a loss of something like I million acres in the United Kingdom in those years.
I think we can credit this ploughing Scheme which was started at the beginning of 1952 by my right hon. Friend with the main part of the success in arresting this downward trend and in securing again this continuing upward trend in tillage acreage. I therefore ask the House with confidence to approve this Scheme to enable us to continue these ploughing grants for a further twelve months.
6.27 p.m.
Mr. A. J. Champion: We did not oppose the Measure under which these Schemes have been made. We do not, in fact, propose today to oppose this Scheme, but there are one or two points which I have to put and I hope that we shall get a reply before we part with another of these Schemes under the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Act.
The Minister said—and I did not quite follow him—that the addition to Paragraph 3 (1) was to enable in certain cases a summer fallow to intervene between the actual ploughing and the cropping. I wonder in this connection what are those circumstances. Can he give us any idea of the sort of circumstances the Minister had in mind when he included this addition in his Scheme. I wonder, too, if there are any cases in which this alteration might not apply to Part II of the Scheme. Would the words which he has inserted in Paragraph 3 (1), in fact, cover anything that might happen under Part II of the Scheme if he thought it desirable in those circumstances to have a summer fallow and possibly the same sort of cropping as he is thinking of in connection with Part I of the Scheme?

1549
The Minister has told us that there have been certain increases in tillage and, of course, we welcome them. They make for better farming and better production on our land, and we certainly welcome that. I can understand his difficulty in providing at this time figures of increase which would have been very helpful to us in connection with this Scheme, but realising that we have not yet got to the time when those figures are available, we have to take his word for it that there have been some increases and that these increases are a continuation of those which we saw in the previous year.
We ought to know what is the total cost of the grant under the 1952 Scheme before we part with the 1953 Scheme. The Minister will remember that under the original Price Review, which set in Motion this train of production grants, we were told that there was likely to be a figure of some £3·4 million per annum spent upon this part of the production grants subsidy. We were told that under the Ploughing Grants Scheme a total of £3·4 million would be spent annually, and that sum would be deducted from the amounts which were to be paid to the farmers as a result of the increases in the cost of production. We ought to know if the £3·4 million has been exceeded and, if it has, how this was taken into consideration in the Review of 1953. We should also like to know whether these grants are still being paid out of the farmers' pockets and not out of the pockets of the taxpayers.
The Minister has told us that we have had a number of additional acres. I wonder whether he or his Department have reckoned up the cost of those additional acres in subsidy payments? What is the cost per acre of this addition to tillage? I know that other figures come into the reckoning, but when one isolates the figure for the increase in the amount of tillage and compares it with the amount of money paid out per acre, the increase appears to be a figure which neither the Minister nor anyone else can justify, unless there is something else which must be taken into consideration. The amount of the increase, when reckoned in connection with the money paid out for each additional acre ploughed, appears to be a staggering figure. I hope that the Minister can tell
1550
us something about this, and can also justify the fact that the money has been spent in this way.
There is one other aspect of this matter which should be cleared up. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture today, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), told us that agriculture was moving into a freer economy and that he was in the process of setting the industry and the country free. Those words appealed to the hon. Member for Orpington, who so often represents advanced Tory thought on this matter.
If we are moving into this very free economy, it is right that we should know what place a production grant and a subsidy should have in that free economy. If we are to have this freedom; if the market is to be freed so that the farmer can go there and get the best price he can—and it may be that he will get a higher price in a free market—how can there be any justification for a production grant in addition to the free market price that he will get?
In the Review of 1952, the Minister said that he was thinking in terms of the increase due to the farmer as a result of his increased production costs being paid to him in two ways. One was by increasing his end-price and the other by giving him, instead, some form of a production grant as a stimulus to production. If there were justification for that in circumstances in which the price which the farmer got was controlled, there would appear to be not the slightest justification for it in circumstances in which the market might be absolutely free. It is possible that the farmer would receive something very much in excess of the price which he would have got if the Ministry of Food were purchasing the cereals from the farmers.
The date fixed for the derationing of feedingstuffs is 1st August. I understand that controls on the price of cereals will be removed by the next harvest and, although no final decision has yet been taken as to the method to be employed in giving effect to the price of market guarantees under the 1947 Act when the decontrol of cereal takes place, if, as appears likely, the decision is in favour of a support price scheme, or some form of deficiency payment, the position might arise in which the farmer would receive

1551
a market price higher than the support price and, on top of that, a production grant in the form of a ploughing, fertiliser, or calf subsidy.
If that position arises, the farmer will win both on the swings and on the roundabouts. We want to give the farmer a square deal. We did so when we were sitting on that side of the House; the 1947 Act is evidence of that fact; but we do not want to exceed a reasonable return to the farmer for his product. We do not want the position to arise in which these production grants will be allowed, not as a deduction from the end-price to the farmer but from the taxpayer's pocket. That would be an unjustifiable payment to the farmer.
These are some of the questions which are worrying some of my hon. Friends at the moment. It is quite obvious that people who know something about the industry are worrying about what is to happen when we move from the present position into a freer economy, where, if the Ministry is not very careful, the farmer will be given this quite unjustifiable double payment. Before we part with this Scheme, I hope that we shall have a reply to the points which I have raised. If the reply is satisfactory we shall not divide against this Scheme. As I say, we passed the first Scheme under the Ploughing Grants Act, 1952, but at that time the circumstances were entirely different. Knowing the Minister, I expect that he will be able to supply us with some answers which we shall at least consider sympathetically.
6.37 p.m.
Mr. R. T. Paget: I have never liked this Ploughing Grants Scheme. I did not like it when it was introduced by the Labour Government, and I do not like it now—I have always believed in the principles of the 1947 Act—and I am getting more and more doubtful whether the Government do. It is a question upon which the farmer and the community require some reassurance. The principle of the 1947 Act is that farm production shall be on a contract basis, that the price of the contract shall be fixed each March, and that that price shall be such as to call for the production required.
If, instead of having a price that will call for the production which is required,
1552
we proceed to have a price lower than that which is necessary, and our short-fall in price is made up by a random system of subsidies, the whole contract scheme will begin to topple. Yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food made some observations with regard to the freeing of meat. I am not saying that that Minister is a particularly responsible spokesman. He does not carry the weight of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), to whom reference has been made. On the other hand, is there anything in that? If that happens, the whole structure of the 1947 Act will go.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is getting very far from the Scheme which we are discussing. There is a parent Act of 1952 which authorises these grants in principle. The hon. and learned Member cannot criticise that Act without a Motion for its repeal. He must confine himself more strictly to the Scheme which is before us.
Mr. Paget: If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, I wholly agree, and I shall confine myself strictly to the Scheme. I hope my remarks may be taken as an introductory form indicating the general framework—
Mr. Speaker: I formed that view of the hon. and learned Member's remarks, but I thought his exordium was somewhat prolonged.
Mr. Paget: It shall be prolonged no longer. To return to this device. As it was introduced last year I understood that it was not regarded as a permanent measure but as a temporary boost to obtain a particular increase hurriedly, a boost which would give an increase more quickly than the application of a price to the final product. We are told that some acres which were not ploughed before 1939 have now been ploughed. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) asked a very telling question; what does the ploughing of each of these acres cost? Does it cost considerably more than the acres, either ploughed or unploughed, were ever worth? Does not the cost of getting the increase considerably exceed the value of the land which has been added by ploughing? Does it exceed it by several times? That is the sort of test to show whether this kind of boost is worth while.

1553
If this inducement is the operative factor to get people to plough land which they have not thought worth ploughing since 1939 and did not think worth ploughing last year, even with this bonus, why should they think it is worth ploughing next year? What is the point of continuing something which is applied as a boost? If we continue a boost, its effect is destroyed. What we require is to be able to give a quick and temporary inducement, and then people will take it because they will know it is their one chance.
If we carry these things on people will say, "Now they have put it on, they will not take it off next year or the year after." The idle farmer who has not ploughed his land since 1939 and who requires special inducement to make him do so and to see that he makes the best use of his land, will put it off until next year. Can the Minister give some indication of when we shall see the end of this boost and when we can get back to the 1947 principle of a contract price?
6.44 p.m.
Mr. Nugent: Perhaps I may have the leave of the House to reply to the various points made. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) asked a number of questions. His first dealt with the amendment in paragraph 3 (1) which will enable my right hon. Friend to approve an acreage for a fallow. This will occur where a particular field may be dirty and may require the fallow in order to clean it, and where there is no other suitable way of killing the weeds growing on the field. The farmer might make his application next spring in order to start his summer fallow, and if he is fallowing it in the summer of 1954 with the intention of sowing in the autumn of 1954, he would run into the following year and would not qualify for subsidy. Unless there is some special dispensation of this kind, the farmer cannot be paid the £5 an acre. In practice we found this was a necessity, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise it.
The hon. Member asked why we did not apply this dispensation to Part II of the Scheme, and the answer is that provision to give my right hon. Friend sufficient latitude in Part II has been made, enabling him to pay a £10 grant at such a stage in the operation of clearing
1554
and bringing the land into cultivation as he thinks fit. It was never so tightly drawn as Part I.
I was also asked the cost of the grant in 1952–53, but I cannot give precise figures. The year ends on 31st May, and quite a lot of the land on which application has been made for grant has not yet been finally approved and cleared. There is bound to be an element of estimate in my answer, and the best estimate I can give him is that in England and Wales and Northern Ireland about 730,000 acres will have been approved, entailing a cost of about £3·65 million. In other words, it is not far from the figure which he mentioned and is about the same as last year.
The hon. Member also asked what was the cost of an additional acre in subsidy because it seemed to him to be very high. I think that was part of his general argument about the effect and value of these subsidies as we move into a freer economy, when, instead of the system of guaranteed fixed prices paid by the Ministry of Food, we have a system of support prices or deficiency payments and a return to a free market.
I shall deal with his first question first—and it was also asked by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget): what is the cost of an additional acre in subsidy? That does not give a fair indication of the value of the ploughing grant. The cost of an additional acre would indeed look ridiculous if it were measured in terms of the total cost of the subsidy, but the subsidy is given as part of the general award to farmers at a price review when end prices for commodities are fixed. It is at the same time part of the general award and of the net income of the industry making up the figure of £320 million or whatever may be the approved figure for the year. It has been given in this way by these specific subsidies. The cost of the £3 million or £4 million in ploughing subsidy must be regarded as part of the net income of the farming industry as a whole.
That brings me straight into the general argument of how this is to work in a satisfactory way from the point of view of the taxpayer and consumer, as well as from the farmer's point of view, in the freer economy.
Mr. Champion: Has the hon. Gentleman any figures to tell us about the cost per acre for the increased acres? He has merely given a general statement.
Mr. Nugent: Obviously I am not able to give any figures because I have not the figures of the increase this year. What I am saying is that the figure would be no indication of value for money, because the value of this subsidy, as I hope I will convince the hon. Member and his hon. and learned Friend before I have finished, is far wider than the actual increase in the general tillage acreage.
The cost of the subsidy is not attributable only to cereals. In fact only about 10 per cent. of it is reflected in cereals. The greater part of it, in oats and barley and a variety of other crops, is of course fed to livestock and comes out finally in livestock realisation rather than in cereal realisation. It is essentially an award to the industry as a whole and is taken into account in deciding the proper level of net income for the industry in the year under review. It would be unwise to judge the value of it simply in terms of the net increase in acreage.
I recognise the importance of the question about how we justify the making of this award as we move into a freer economy. There are two points in the answer. The first is that a system of support prices has been common throughout the whole of the Scheme. For oats and barley the price fixed at the Review has been a support price. The farmer has been free to make the best price he can over that in the market. With barley he had the opportunities of the malting market. With oats he had the opportunities of the oatmeal market and he could make the price considerably higher. That type of farmer thereby has an advantage. One must recognise that.
But the total amount realised by the industry by virtue of sales in the malting market, the oatmeal market and so on is taken into account in the general calculation when assessing the net income and expenditure for the industry in the year. One cannot do it more precisely than that. We have not been able to do it in the past nor shall we be able to do it in the future. I must not stray too far into that field. It is right to say
1556
that we shall be able to continue to make what is called this global calculation in future, as we have done in the past.
From the point of view of justifying the system of ploughing subsidies as part of the award, there is no reason why we should not continue it in future. I have no reason to think that thereby the consumer will get less value than he has done in the past. I hope that that reassures hon. Gentlemen opposite that this will not become an haphazard system of subsidies. We shall continue to be vitally interested in what is the net income of the industry. We must be, because without that we cannot be assured of getting the volume of produce that we want. Therefore we must continue to have regard in the Price Review to this sort of calculation.
In the same way, it is right to make the point that they have never been precise in the past. They cannot be accurate to more than about 2 per cent. or 3 per cent.—about £20 million or £30 million. In future the margin of error may be a bit bigger. The only satisfactory way to regard the calculations is as an indication of the broad trend of the income of the industry. There are many other factors in judging just what is the right award and how it should be broken down to specific prices for specific commodities. I hope hon. Members will realise that the continuation of the subsidies for another year will in no way prejudice the position.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton asked why we continue with this ploughing subsidy which, in his opinion, was intended to be a boost. The answer is that experience has taught us that it is necessary to continue it if we are to maintain the tillage acreage that we want. When my right hon. Friend introduced the parent Act he said that he wished to make these Schemes run for two years and not to have to renew them annually. He thought that they should have a measure of continuity though they should not be permanent.
I ask the House to approve this Scheme because I believe with confidence that it is necessary to continue this device if we are to maintain and to continue to increase the tillage acreage. This Scheme has a special value in the hon. and learned Member's part of the world, in the Midland counties, where there was a distinct

1557
tendency to go back to grass at the end of the war and where they were not only going back to grass but were allowing the speed of rotation to decrease. Instead of a three-year rotation they were going to four, five or six-year rotations.
There is no doubt that in practice the subsidy makes a strong appeal to the small farmer, who has responded by speeding up his rotation and perhaps bringing under the plough land that has not been ploughed before. It gives him some cash at the beginning of the process which helps him to finance his operations. The Scheme also has a valuable effect on the farmer in the counties. When the district advisory officer or the district committee man who is making a survey can say to a farmer, "What about ploughing up that field? We can give you £5 an acre," that has a most valuable psychological effect encouraging the farmer to take the decision to go ahead.
I am confident that the subsidy fully justifies its continuance at least for another year. I do not suggest that it should be permanent. I simply say that it is fully justified now. It is maintaining and increasing tillage acreage. I firmly believe that it will continue to do so.
Resolved,
That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.
6.58 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): I beg to move,
That the Draft Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) (Scotland) Scheme, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.
This is the third Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) (Scotland) Scheme, and is similar to the one which has just been approved. I do not think I need go into the details which have been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. I should like to give the relevant Scottish figures.
We believe that the two previous Scottish Schemes have accomplished the Government's aim of reversing the dangerous downward trend in our tillage acreage which was clearly apparent in 1951. The actual fall between 1950 and 1951, was 39,000 acres. We have contributed,
1558
through the ploughing grant, to arresting that decline and turning it into a net increase of 13,000 acres in 1952.
My hon. Friend was asked about the figures for this year. Unfortunately, we are unable to give final figures because the June returns are not yet analysed. As far as we can see, with about three weeks still to run under the last Scheme, we have applications for about 300,000 acres under Part I. Under Part II, again with several weeks to go before the closing date, we have applications for 10,500 acres. That is under the £10 grant.
Broadly speaking, this Scheme is the same as the second. There are three small alterations which I should explain. They are practically similar to those which have just been outlined by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. We are including the same condition about fallowing, although in Scotland fallow will not have the same application as it will have south of the border. Here and there we have heavy land where fallowing may come into the picture but we do not expect this condition to be of any great importance in Scotland.
The previous Scheme required the occupier of eligible land to seek the approval of an agricultural executive committee before the land was sown direct to grass. That is to say, direct re-seeding required the approval of an agricultural executive committee. We have extended this provision to include re-seeding with any other crop grown for grazing by livestock. In Scotland it will apply almost entirely to rape, and where rape is sown with a grass seed mixture prior approval will be required just as if it had been a case of direct re-seeding.
The last alteration, in Part II of this Scheme, is that provision has now been made for the payment of the grant where the farmer has completed at least one approved operation after the ploughing and where the remaining operations are likely to be spread over a considerable period. The reason is that under this part of the Scheme there is very great expense. It involves ploughing extremely difficult land, where tree roots and scrub and various things of that kind have to be got out of the way. We believe that paying the grant after one appropriate cultivation has taken place will encourage

1559
people who are hanging back because of the long time that they have to wait for their money and in view of the high expense. We hope that these arrangements will induce people to take advantage of this grant where hitherto they have not seen their way to finance projects of this kind before receiving some payment.
7.2 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: I submit that the case for these ploughing grants grows progressively weaker. Last year the Government made a case that could not be strongly resisted. This year the Government are on weak ground. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has reminded us that in 1951 we suffered a great reduction in tillage acreage in Scotland of 39,000, but largely in consequence of this Scheme we turned that drop of 39,000 acres into a gain of 13,000 acres last year.
The hon. Gentleman will of course have in mind that in 1950 it was exceedingly difficult to convince the farmers of Scotland that the Government could not obtain feedingstuffs from countries overseas. Hon. Members who are now supporters of the Government, and some who are in the Government, went about the country saying that the miserable Socialist Government just would not spend the exchange on procuring much needed feedingstuffs from overseas. In 1951 world prices for feedingstuffs went up rapidly and farmers had brought home to them the fact that towards the end of 1951 and into 1952 the price was going up and up.
If world prices go up the growing of the grain at home becomes of course an ever more attractive proposition. Not only that, but the farmers had a party in Government who had said that the Labour Government had not really been trying to obtain feedingstuffs from overseas, and now that same party had to say that those feedingstuffs could not be obtained. The farmers, therefore, were in the position of knowing that under no party which was likely to be a future Government was there a possibility of increasing the purchases of feedingstuffs from overseas and that, therefore, if we were to increase production and increase the number of livestock we must grow more feedingstuffs ourselves. One would
1560
have expected that the downward trend would have been held. We must not have this drop quoted as if it were an annual occurrence. This 39,000 acre drop was the biggest drop in post-war years.
We are bound to look at the cost of these extra acres that we are obtaining. The Joint Under-Secretary of State said that we had an additional 13,000 acres in 1952. We are also told in the report of the Department of Agriculture that applications were made for ploughing subsidy in respect of 288,000 acres. Even at £5 per acre, leaving aside the payment of £10 per acre under Part II of the Scheme, that represents £1,440,000 in respect of an additional 13,000 acres. So to get down to the figure for which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire. South-East (Mr. Champion), it really costs £111 per acre to get the additional acreage that we are obtaining.
The ploughing up of this land is either good or bad husbandry. I have spoken to many farmers about this scheme. When I have asked them about the ploughing up subsidy the immediate reaction of any responsible farmer has been a broad smile and the words, "It is just absurd." I spoke to one farmer a fortnight ago and asked him what he thought about it. He said, "Well, I ploughed up 50 acres of grass this year"—he farms in rather a big way. "My farming operations are carried on in a seven to eight years' rotation—three to four years of grass and four years of crop. The ploughing-up subsidy does not make a bit of difference to me." He is in the higher range of taxpayers as it is and this subsidy would not be any inducement to him, but he added. "I ploughed 50 acres and I will get £250 for them."
It is all very well to say that this money is really part of the global sum which we intend should go into agriculture. Those of us who have to address urban audiences on this matter from time to time could justify the payment of £250 to this farmer if we could convince them that if the farmer did not receive it in this way he would obtain it in the end price for the crop. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said that even in this free economy into which we are moving, when farmers will be able to dispose of

1561
all their grain at the best prices that they can obtain in the market, we shall nevertheless take into account in the Annual Review what they actually receive, and that will determine the support price for some commodities and the fixed price for others and the level of subsidy.
That is not an explanation that will go down very well with urban audiences. They will say, "Why should the farmer on good land who will obtain a good price for his produce, and who would carry this cultivation through as a normal routine job that he does on the farm, have the subsidy when if he did not do the job of ploughing up he would go out of business?" A member of an urban audience asks, "Why should this man get £5 an acre for doing a job which he will do in any case?" Indeed, the farmer to whom I referred just now said to me that in his view if he had not ploughed up his 50 acres of grassland he ought to have been punished rather than given this subsidy of £5 an acre for doing what he would have done in any case.
I think the higher subsidy of £10 in respect of the difficult land where the tearing up of tree roots etc. is involved is probably a very good subsidy. I am glad to learn from the Joint Under-Secretary of State that applications have been made this year in respect of 10,000 acres of such land in Scotland because I regard that as work of reclamation, the bringing into food production of acres that would otherwise be producing little or nothing. I want to encourage that, and I think we all do. Indeed, I would rather we spent a little more money on that.
I come to the fallowing of which we have been told. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said that it was desirable to permit certain acres, particular fields on particular farms, to lie fallow for a whole year after ploughing up to get rid of the heavy growth of weeds that had developed on that land. The farmer of that land has been guilty of very bad husbandry, otherwise his fields would not have got into that state. One wonders whether it would not be better if the Government were to exercise some of the other powers they have to see the land so treated and managed that it would not get into such a deplorable state that it has to be left fallow for a whole year—fallow for a whole year while the taxpayer has to help to
1562
pay for the ploughing up of fields left idle.
We must, I think, pass this Scheme for Scotland. The House has just approved one for England for another year, and I think we shall have to approve this one for Scotland as well. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that he thought a case had been made out for continuing the scheme for another year. I hope he will bear in mind the words he has uttered, and that the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland will do likewise. The Scheme is to be continued for another year, but they had better consider the whole business very carefully before coming back in a year's time and asking for this kind of subsidy to be paid for yet another year.
It will not do. The Government have powers under the 1947 Act in England and under the 1948 Act in Scotland to get a high measure of efficient husbandry. They have Orders in both countries called the Maximum Area of Pasture Orders which give them and the executive committees power to say to a farmer, "You shall not have more than such an area of pasture on your farm." If those powers were being exercised, and if the farmers were not disposed to leave too big areas of pasture on their farms, there would be no need to give this payment of £5 an acre for the ploughing up of grassland.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said that this instrument had been a great help in getting the small farmer on marginal land to plough up that extra acre or so. He said that an officer of the executive committee would call on a farmer and say, "You could plough up this additional acre. This additional small field will give you £5 an acre for doing so," I doubt very much indeed if it is from that source that the farmer has got his additional ploughed acreage. I think he has got his additional ploughed acreage from the best arable areas in this country. Let us do our utmost to encourage the small farmer, indeed the large one, too, on marginal land.
We can give him assistance by marginal land production schemes and so help bring into production land that would otherwise be doing little or nothing. We do not have to employ this extravagant, expensive instrument to

1563
do it, this instrument that is really pouring far too much of the taxpayers' money into the pockets of the most successful and the wealthiest farmers, most of whom are complaining at the end of the day in any case because three-quarters of the money goes back to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Income Tax and Surtax.
If that is so, it is all the more reason why the Government should not put us in the position of having to justify to urban audiences this continued payment of £5 per acre to a farmer for carrying out his normal operations on a farm. Let us have a high standard of efficiency, let us have a high standard of husbandry, let the Government and their agents, the executive committees, do their job in administering the Acts of 1947 and 1948 and administering the Maximum Area of Pasture Orders, and it will not be necessary to continue this very expensive and disturbing instrument for yet another year. We shall not oppose this Motion this year, but let this be the last year.
7.17 p.m.
Mr. John Mackie: I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes, and I should not have intervened at all had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who has himself been formerly an Under-Secretary of State especially charged with looking after the welfare of this most ancient industry in Britain and the most important in Scotland, as he will have to admit, did not speak more in unison with the more reasonable and in some ways excellent speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion). I thought that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire, South-East showed himself to be very much more at grips with the situation really existing in agriculture today than did his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton.
The hon. Member for Hamilton made great play with the difficulty he would have—and I suppose that applies to all Socialist Members for Scotland—in justifying this ploughing grant and its continuance for another year to urban audiences in the Northern Kingdom. I know, and I am delighted to know, that
1564
it is the case that there is far greater interest being taken in the urban areas in agriculture today than has ever been the case before. That is why I do not want to see that interest in any way diminished or injured by speeches such as that the hon. Gentleman has just delivered to this House.
I am delighted to think that there is such an interest being taken in even one detail connected with agriculture, namely, this ploughing grant. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends if they set out—and I did not know they were thinking of doing so, but if they do—to justify this to urban audiences, will not have as formidable a task in so justifying it as the hon. Gentleman has just told the House they will.
The hon. Member for Hamilton also made a great point, or endeavoured to do so, about a conversation he had a fortnight ago with a large farmer in Scotland about this ploughing grant. He said that this farmer seemed to indicate that for his part it was a waste of money, and that the land would have been ploughed up just the same if this grant had not been forthcoming. I wonder if that is the case? That is an individual opinion. We all know individuals in any industry or business with which they are connected who are out to pour cold water upon schemes which most of their brethren in the same industry would gladly welcome.
I say, without offence, that I could mention one or two individual farmers in Scotland who take the same kind of line that the hon. Gentleman has just told the House his farmer friend has taken, but I feel sure that if we could take a plebiscite of the farmers, large and small, and particularly the small farmers, in Scotland—and I think that this probably applies to England and Wales as well—we should find a very large majority of them in favour of continuing this ploughing grant for one more year.
Mr. T. Fraser indicated assent.
Mr. Mackie: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman approves of what I have said.
I have a constituency and personal interest in farming generally. I am only too delighted to confess that. I for one am delighted that this grant is going on for another 12 months and if at the end of that time this Government are

1565
still in power, enjoying even greater majorities in the House, and come forward with an another ploughing grant which will be the subject, no doubt, of keen debate and review by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I shall be delighted.
As I say, I am delighted that this matter will come up again in 12 months' time, if this Government see fit to introduce such a proposal again. But let the hon. Gentleman realise—I beg him to keep it in mind: it is very important, when he is pouring cold water on this Scheme, or endeavouring to do so—that no matter what was said today by the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)—and his name has been mentioned several times in the last hour in this Chamber—the farmers' costs of production have been rising. It is no use saying that they have not—the hon. Gentleman well knows it—and this grant will be an incentive to them for the ensuing 12 months.
Mr. Fraser indicated dissent.
Mr. Mackie: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if that is not so I shall be very disappointed.
The Joint Under-Secretary says that another 13,000 acres have been reclaimed as a result of the Scheme which operated over the last 12 months. With great respect to him, I think that it would be a more graphic way of putting it to say that we have got back 39,000 acres and we have added another 13,000 acres, making 52,000 acres.
Mr. Fraser indicated dissent.
Mr. Mackie: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the Joint Under-Secretary does not deny it. The hon. Gentleman has not been associated as actively as the Minister with the Scottish Office for nearly two years, and he is not in a position to trifle with the statement which my hon. Friend made, and which I have endeavoured modestly to elaborate in this speech.
As I say I did not intend to speak, and I do not think that I should have done so but for the challenging speech which the former Under-Secretary of State for Scotland delivered. I am delighted to think that at the end of his speech he associated himself with what my hon. Friend had said, by saying that
1566
he would offer no opposition to this Scheme. I am glad that he supports it, and I can say that we are delighted to have it for another 12 months. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be proved entirely wrong, that the taxpayers of Scotland will not suffer and that the consumers will not suffer. I hope that the agricultural community—the farmers—whose duty it is to plough up and till the land will benefit largely from the result of these ploughing grants, if they are continued for another year.
7.25 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: I have no doubt that the Government will be reassured to hear that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) and his farming friends do not intend to reject the subsidies offered to them under this Scheme.
Part III, paragraph 10 of the Scheme makes special provision for small landholders and crofters. I am very glad that in these schemes such special provisions are usually incorporated. I think it is generally agreed that this is the type of farmer who genuinely does need assistance and who often finds difficulty in getting the full benefit from the various agricultural subsidies owing to the nature and size of his holding. I should like to ask one or two questions about that paragraph. If the Joint Under-Secretary cannot reply to these points now perhaps he will do so at some other time.
Paragraph 10 as drafted applies only to landholders who are holders under certain Acts. There are certain parts of the crofting counties where the crofters have bought their crofts and are owner-occupiers. On the face of it they would not come under this Scheme. I do not know if there are many cases which have arisen of people being excluded from these benefits because they are owner-occupiers. The person who has bought his croft is in the same position as the true crofter, and I have no doubt that the Government intend to give him the benefit which the true crofter would get under this Scheme.
The Scheme refers to landholders of "neighbouring" landholdings. They have to make up one acre among their holdings to be able to apply for the grants. Has there been any difficulty in finding out what this word "neighbouring"

1567
means. It looks as if it was intended to refer only to landholders who have an interest in a common grazing. Can the Joint Under-Secretary tell us what is meant by "neighbouring" in connection with this Scheme. Is it all the landholders who have rights of common grazing together. If so, some of their holdings may be a considerable distance apart. I take it that it is not intended that they should be able to apply for this subsidy only in respect of land which has been enclosed for the common grazings after an apportionment by the Land Court. Are they entitled to apply for subsidy for any land whether it originally came from a common grazing or not? I should like to know if there has been any difficulty, and, if so, I hope that the Government are being as lenient as possible and are interpreting this word "neighbouring" as widely as possible.
The Scheme also states that,
"… application in respect of the total area ploughed up is made on behalf of the individual landholders concerned by a Common Grazings Committee or Grazings Constable … or by a representative authorised by the landholders to act on their behalf and approved by the Secretary of State."
No doubt this is not such a high-sounding phrase as it appears to be in the Scheme. I urge on the Government that these are small people, who possibly are not very well read and conversant with these Schemes, and I hope that the Government will not put too many difficulties in the way of their getting their representative properly accredited.
Again, I should like to know whether there has been any difficulty in bringing crofters within the orbit of this type of scheme and on this particular point of getting their representative approved. My general point is that the Government should do all that they can to assist in allowing crofters and smallholders to take advantage of this sort of scheme, and to make the conditions for them as easy as possible.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Snadden: Perhaps, with permission, I might reply briefly to one or two of the points which have been made.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about neighbouring
1568
holders, we are making the provision as wide as possible and are in no way drawing the line very tightly. My information with regard to the crofting position is that the provision does not apply to owner-occupiers, but perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to look into it and verify that, and if he will send me particulars of any cases that he has I shall be grateful. There is no difficulty about the representative who is appointed. The provision is merely to make sure that proper control is exercised from St. Andrew's House and that a responsible person is chosen.
I wish also to deal with a few of the points raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), to which he is entitled to a reply. He said that, to a great extent, the increased acreage of land came from the best arable areas. That is his opinion. It is not our opinion. The reason is that, as a rule, the better arable farms work on short rotations. Therefore, the grants that we have been giving for a four-year ley or over have in the main gone to medium and poorer farms.
Mr. T. Fraser: Has the grass to be a four-year ley or over? According to paragraph 5 (b) of Part I of the Scheme, land which would qualify for subsidy is land which has been continually under grass since 1st June, 1950, and is ploughed after 1st June, 1953. It has to be sown down to grass only three years. That means only two years of usable grass.
Mr. Snadden: It is really a three-year ley, but many people would regard it as a four-year ley, including the year of sowing down.
The hon. Member also referred to fallow. Certain types of land, even quite good grass land, contain a grass called twitch grass, and in Scotland we have a particularly nasty one called knot grass, which is often found on good farming land and is not always the result of bad farming. In order to kill that grass, one has to cultivate the land, very often for a considerable time, and with the help of the rays of the sun, to get rid of it. That is one of the reasons why we feel that it is useful to include fallow.
The hon. Gentleman criticised me for giving the figure of 39,000 acres. If I had not given it I should still have been criticised. I gave it to show the fall in the

1569
tillage acreage and also to show that we have made a net increase of 13,000 acres above that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) said, that means 52,000 acres. The hon. Gentleman opposite talked about the expense of the scheme. He will agree that we had to face the hard fact that our tillage acreage was falling steeply, and we simply had to put forward some incentive to stop the fall. We cannot tell what the fall might have been in the next year had the ploughing grant not been introduced, but it might have been much more than 39,000 acres.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the point that many farmers would be doing the job in any case, and said that we were paying money to people who should have been doing the job in the ordinary course of farming. That is the case, and we have to admit it, but, again, we had to take a hard fact into account. We had a falling tillage acreage and we had to stop that trend in order to maintain and increase our head of livestock. There was no way round that. I admit that in many cases farmers would be paid for grass land which in the normal course they would have been ploughing anyhow.
The hon. Member expressed a fear about the ploughing grant generally. I would remind him that we have to bring our Schemes before Parliament every year. It might happen that price levels would move in a free economy, or circumstances change to such an extent that a further grant would be inappropriate. As any scheme would still have to be brought to Parliament for approval, however, I do not think there is any reason to be afraid about the future. Parliament has the duty of approving a Scheme. I hope that, with that explanation, the House will give us the Scheme.
Resolved,
That the Draft Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) (Scotland) Scheme, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
7.35 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I beg to move,
That the Representation of the People Regulations, 1953, dated 24th April, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if we also consider the Regulations relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland, which are in similar terms, except that in the case of Scotland the order of the paragraphs is rather different, and in the case of Northern Ireland local government elections are not dealt with because those are matters for the Government of Northern Ireland and not for this Government.
The Representation of the People Act, 1948, made certain provisions for absent voters at Parliamentary and local government elections. There are three classes of such voters, those who vote by post, those who vote by proxy and those whose proxies themselves vote by post; and a person wishing to use these provisions must make application to do so. In certain cases he may apply to be registered in relation to a particular election. He does that if he is a candidate or the wife of a candidate, or is likely otherwise to be engaged—
Mr. Ede: "He" cannot be the wife of a candidate.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If he is a candidate or she is the wife of a candidate. He may apply to be registered for an indefinite period if, for example, he is a person suffering from some physical incapacity or by the nature of his occupation he is likely to be away. Once registered, a person can apply to cancel a previous application in order to vote in the ordinary way.
Under the first Regulations made, the Representation of the People Regulations, 1949, no definite date was fixed as the last day for applications. The Regulations gave discretion to electoral registration officers to disregard late applications if they were received, in the case of those registered for a particular

1571
election, on or after the last day for nominations, and in the case of those registered indefinitely, if they were received on or after the date of the writ.
Accordingly, under those Regulations, in the 1950 General Election the last date for applications varied from constituency to constituency according to the discretion of the electoral registration officer, and that led to a good deal of confusion and discontent. A second set of Regulations was made. They were introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in 1950, and they fixed the last date for making application as the last day for nominations. In others words, in the case of a General Election the last day for making application was nine days before polling day, and in the case of a bye-election it was seven to nine days before polling day. The date was chosen after consultation with the chief party agents and representative registration and returning officers. It was chosen because it was taken to be the latest date that was practicable, and I think it was generally agreed at the time that it was tentatively chosen and would be subject to review in the light of what might occur at a subsequent general election.
The 1951 General Election showed that the date chosen in 1950 was too late having regard particularly to the very great number of applications to vote by post. In England and Wales the number of applications increased by more than two-thirds as between 1950 and 1951. The House may be interested if I give very briefly some figures. In England in 1950 there were 410,000 valid applications to vote by post. In 1951 that number increased to 688,000. In Wales the increase was from 24,000 to 39,000, in Northern Ireland from 24,000 to 25,000, and in Scotland from 49,000 to 79,000
A large proportion of the applications came in the last two or three days in which they could be made. I will give figures for the city of Birmingham in the 1951 Election to show what I mean. The total number of valid applications was, in round figures, 9,500. Of those some 2,000 were received before the Election began. Three thousand five hundred had been received by 12th October, which was the last day but two on which applications
1572
could be made. No less than 4,000 applications came in the last two days.
It was clearly impossible, in those circumstances, to examine, check and complete the lists in time. It led to delay sometimes in getting the postal ballot papers issued, and, as a result a large number of voting papers were returned too late. In fact, the increase in late voting papers was no less than 136 per cent. It rose from 22,000 to 52,000. It was clear from that that the closing date for applications must be earlier.
Consultations took place with the chief agents and others concerned and all have agreed on the terms of these Regulations, under which the last date for applications will be a fortnight before polling day. The House will see that in paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of the Regulations for England and Wales there is reference to the different classes I have mentioned, and the last day is the twelfth day before polling day. But under the Regulations Sundays are excluded so that two days must be added, which makes it a fortnight before the ballot. I venture to suggest to the House that that date is reasonable. It gives a little more time for the necessary preparations, and at the same time it leaves people up to the latest practical date in which to put in their applications. I do not think that it will mean there will be more applications out of date. It seems fairly clear that the reason for the last minute rush is that people leave it to the last minute in which to rush. The fact that we are giving them two days less will in fact move that last minute rush back by that time.
May I say a word about the supply of the lists of absent voters to candidates. Following a request to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields when he was Home Secretary, the registration officers have, in fact, supplied lists of absent voters to candidates on request. It has not been compulsory for them to do so, because it was thought that there would be difficulties of timing. It is fairly clear that with this additional time there will be no such difficulties, and henceforth under these Regulations one free copy of the lists of absent voters must be supplied to each candidate or his or her agent upon request. That must be as soon as practicable, and in any event before the date of the issue of the ballot

1573
papers. This is covered by Regulations 2 to 5 in the Regulations for England and Wales, and there are corresponding Regulations in the other two.
As far as local government elections are concerned there is no alteration of the previous arrangements. In England and Wales applications have hitherto had to be made at least 14 days before the date of the poll. To that has to be added two days for the exclusion of Sundays, which means 16 days in all, and that position will remain. In the case of local government elections, too, a free copy of the lists of absent voters will have to be supplied to the candidate or his or her agent on request.
May I say a final word about Regulation 6 for England and Wales, to which these are corresponding Regulations for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Regulation 61 of the 1950 Regulations relates to a notification by a central national registration officer to an electoral registration officer that a man has left the Services and has therefore ceased to be a Service voter. The office of central national registration officer was abolished last year by the ending of national registration. The Registrar-General has the necessary information, and the effect of Regulation 6 is to substitute the Registrar-General for the officer who has now been abolished.
7.48 p.m.
Mr. Ede: I am sure the House is obliged to the Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department for so clearly explaining these Regulations to us. He has indicated that the alterations that they make in the practice will be in vogue in the next fortnight if we approve these Regulations and they come into effect. I think that they represent an improvement. This was a novel procedure in our elections in peace-time, and it was necessary to get the appropriate experience that would enable us to frame the Regulations to secure that the maximum number of people should be able to benefit from them and, at the same time, that the registration officers and the candidates' election agents should be able to conduct an election with efficiency.
Undoubtedly on the first occasion, when it was left to the discretion of the returning officer, a very considerable
1574
amount of discontent was caused when in an adjoining constituency it was found that a very different practice was prevailing. We attempted to avoid that in the second set of Regulations, and I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman that we probably considered the convenience of the voter—quite rightly—rather than that of the officials connected with the election, with the result that on occasions there were undoubtedly difficulties between the returning officer and the candidate's agent when the returning officer was flooded out in the last 48 hours by this spate of requests for inclusion on the list.
I am not as sanguine as the hon. Gentleman that there will be no reduction in the number of persons claiming because we now fix the day two days earlier. My experience is that on the day after the last day, one has an even bigger number of persons coming into the Committee room to inquire what can be done than on the day or two before the last day. Undoubtedly, as the election proceeds, people begin to find out that there is something on and that unless they are very careful they may be debarred from participating in the election.
I hope, therefore, that when statements are made, as they are, from the Home Office to the Press of the country as to the various dates that govern the election, care will be taken to see that it is prominently stated in the first notice that is issued that a certain date—I am now dealing with Parliamentary elections—and not 12 days before the election plus two extra days because two Sundays intervene, will be specified, and that in the subsequent statements that are made up to the day on which the facilities given to the voters under these Regulations expire, that date will be repeated.
I emphasise that the date should be named and not its relationship with polling day, because there might be this complication of the two Sundays. After all, some people are not prepared to regard Sundays as days that do not count; some people think they are only days that do count. I recollect when I was a teacher taking some boys out, after we had won a very exciting cricket match, to give them a little extra treat. As we were sitting down to tea, one boy, with his mouth well stuffed with bun, said," Mr. Ede, this seems to me

1575
like Sunday." The boy sitting next to him said, "It does not seem like Sunday—I am enjoying myself." It is difficult to get people sometimes to realise that Sunday does not count for these purposes. Therefore, if the date is stated there should be no mistake, and a person who takes the trouble to read the notice, or any note of it that appears in the Press, ought to know which is the day on which his right to apply for inclusion in the list will expire.
It is also a good thing that it should now be made compulsory on the registration officer to supply the candidate with the list. After all, an agent can be a "she" as well as a "he." My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) has a most efficient agent who is a lady. Therefore, the difficulty with regard to getting in both the pronouns when one is not relying on the Interpretation Act, arises even there. As I say, it is a good thing that the registration officer should be placed under compulsion to supply the list. There, again, it is very annoying, particularly in a county constituency, if it is found that in one area a list is available and in another it is not. It leads to comparisons being drawn between public officers, which ought to be avoided if at all possible.
These Regulations represent the fruit of experience. I have no doubt that under them we shall gain further experience. It may be that in the course of a year or two the Home Secretary may find it advisable even to submit further Regulations dealing with this point. I think, however, that these Regulations embody the result of the experiences we have had during the two general elections when this form of voting has been available. I commend the Regulations to my right hon. and hon. Friends. I suggest that as far as England and Wales are concerned and, in so far as I am entitled now to speak for Northern Ireland, as far as Northern Ireland also is concerned, we should accept them. But heaven forbid that I should say anything about Scotland.
Mr. Thomas Steele: I only want to ask one question in connection with Regulations 3 and 6 concerning the free issue of one copy of the lists. I am sure that election
1576
agents and candidates will welcome this improvement in the Regulations. Many candidates and agents have in the past found difficulty in securing the list of names of people who were on the postal register.
The Regulations say that one copy of the list shall be supplied free. We ought not to be niggardly. One copy seems to me to be a rather small allocation, especially for county constituencies. Although the Regulations say in effect that one copy is to be issued free, am I to understand from what the Minister said that agents may secure other copies on payment?
7.59 p.m.
Mr. John Taylor: This is one of those subjects in which every Member of the House is intensely interested. It is a matter of the mechanics of elections. It is one of the improvements in the organisation and mechanical operation and management of election campaigns in Parliamentary elections that have been made within recent years.
When, a few years ago, the extension to the postal vote was new, it was the endeavour of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to extend its use as far as possible. Many of us who were interested in this procedure of arranging elections wondered if my right hon. Friend had gone too far in making sure that every new applicant for a postal vote had every facility. But like him we were determined that there should never be any charge levelled against the Government, or Parliament, or the registration or returning officers, that they were denying electors any part of their rights. It was putting a heavy strain on the registration officers to ask that within a few days they should prepare this list of postal voters, and I welcome the alteration, which I think inevitable and necessary.
We are inclined to look with suspicion upon any undue extension of time for the registration of postal votes. But the experience of registration officers has proved it to be necessary. I think that the proposed time is reasonable and gives registration officers a little extra period to prepare and check the lists.
I am glad of the opportunity to pay a tribute to a body of public servants who infrequently receive compliments for their work. Returning officers and town

1577
clerks or county clerks, sheriffs, and sheriffs substitute are frequently complimented. But these humble members of town clerks' departments and officials of assessors' departments in Scotland seldom have an opportunity of hearing such praise. I have had experience over a quarter of a century of dealing with them, both in England and Scotland, and I have never had reason to complain. I am sure that the new Regulations will be a good thing. We all welcome the change and the result will be a more adequate and accurate register of postal voters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) has asked that the Home Office and the Secretary of State should consider the issue of more than one copy of the list. This should be easily accomplished. There will not be time to print the lists and they will have to be duplicated. I suggest that a number of lists be sent out as free issues of registers to candidates for their agents. That will enable the agents to distribute the postal lists to sub-agents and ward workers.
I am glad that this part of the Regulations has been included because it will bring into line the issue of the parts of the register to the agents of all political parties. This is a highly technical and perhaps to some people a dull matter. But it is an important part of our machine for the running of elections in this country. I believe that we have the most perfect method of conducting elections which exists in the world, and because what we are considering is a little extra perfection, I welcome it.
8.9 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Hyde: I endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor). The work of registration officers in Northern Ireland has been heavy because of the unusually large size of the constituencies. In the county constituencies particularly there have been a great number of postal votes. The alteration which will give registration officers more time to prepare the lists will be most acceptable in Northern Ireland.
We welcome these Regulations, and I assume that as a matter of form my hon. Friend will assure the House that these Regulations have the approval of the Government of Northern Ireland.
8.10 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I am sure that we should all like to join in the tribute that has been paid to registration officers. As individuals and as Members of Parliament, we have noted their efficiency and have admired their good sense. It is a tribute we pay from the House as a whole at this time.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) suggested, very wisely I thought, that any notice going out should specify a date quite clearly. We agree to that and will do what is necessary. I should like to be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman what the date of the next Election will be, but I cannot do that just yet.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) raised the question of whether there should be more than one copy of the absent voters list. That seems a very reasonable suggestion. The Secretary of State for Scotland and, I am sure, the Home Secretary will consider that suggestion very sympathetically. It may not be possible to do exactly what was suggested by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) in the case of local government elections because there might be great numbers of candidates, but we will give the matter very careful and very sympathetic consideration.
Resolved,
That the Representation of the People Regulations, 1953, dated 24th April, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.
Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1953, dated 24th April, 1953 [copy presented 30th April] approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth].
Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations, 1953, dated 8th May, 1953, [copy presented 12th May] approved.—[Mr. Henderson Stewart.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wills.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes past Eight o'Clock.

AGRICULTURE
  Common Land
  Common Land
  Average Milk Yield
  Average Milk Yield
  Plum and Damson Crop
  Plum and Damson Crop
  Swedish Landrace Pigs
  Swedish Landrace Pigs
  Lime
  Lime
  RIVER POLLUTION, NETHAM
  RIVER POLLUTION, NETHAM
EMPLOYMENT
  Factory Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
  Accrington (Foreign Workers)
  Accrington (Foreign Workers)
  Transport Industry (20 m.p.h. Speed Limit)
  Transport Industry (20 m.p.h. Speed Limit)
  COST OF LIVING
  COST OF LIVING
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Medical Reports
  Medical Reports
  National Service Act
  National Service Act
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Mental Institutions (Children)
  Mental Institutions (Children)
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Hospitals, North-East London (Unstaffed Beds)
  Hospitals, North-East London (Unstaffed Beds)
  Analgesia
  Analgesia
  Essex (Hospital Expenditure)
  Essex (Hospital Expenditure)
  Hospital Medical Staffs (Pay)
  Hospital Medical Staffs (Pay)
  Hearing Aids (Exeter)
  Hearing Aids (Exeter)
  A.C.T.H. and Cortisone
  A.C.T.H. and Cortisone
  Day Nurseries
  Day Nurseries
EDUCATION
  Classes, Leicester
  Classes, Leicester
  New Schools
  New Schools
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Coloured Teachers
  Coloured Teachers
  School Places
  School Places
  Cornwall
  Cornwall
  Lancashire
  Lancashire
  TRADE WITH CHINA
  TRADE WITH CHINA
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  CATERPILLAR PLAGUE, CHAILEY
  CATERPILLAR PLAGUE, CHAILEY
  BRITISH ARMY (PERSONAL CASE)
  BRITISH ARMY (PERSONAL CASE)
  SCOTTISH TOMATOES
  SCOTTISH TOMATOES
  CLYDE SHIPYARDS (ORDERS)
  CLYDE SHIPYARDS (ORDERS)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (AGE GROUPS)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (AGE GROUPS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  TEES VALLEY WATER BILL
  2.35 p.m.
  Read 3ª, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of informing the House that there will be a meeting of the House to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock for formal business only. We expect to receive the Rating and Valuation Bill and the New Towns Bill from another place. It has been arranged, through the usual channels, that these Bills shall be debated on Second Reading in your Lordships' House next Tuesday afternoon. I should also like to remind the House that there will be a Sitting for Public Business on Monday next at 2.30 p.m., when the Committee stage of the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Bill will be taken. There will be no meeting of the House for Public Business on Wednesday, July 15, when Her Majesty is holding a Review of the Royal Air Force. On Thursday, we shall meet at 2.30 p.m. to transact the business on the Order Paper. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has already informed your Lordships, the Sitting that day, when there is a Royal Garden Party, will, in accordance with our usual custom on such occasions, be adjourned at about 3.45 p.m. The Sitting will be resumed about 6 o'clock if the business on the Paper has not been concluded by 3.45. Finally, I have to inform your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Munster will make a statement this afternoon at about 3.30 o'clock on the Public Service in the Gold Coast.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, as I had asked a question privately about this matter may I thank the noble Earl for his full statement? And may I ask
  430
  whether it would be possible to have such a statement about the Business of the House made as a regular practice after Prayers on Thursday, Or whatever is the last Sitting day of the, week? I believe it would be a great convenience to private Members of the House, like myself, who try to attend industriously to their business.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Viscount, I may say that I will certainly bring his remarks to the notice of the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House.

  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read 3ª (according; to Order), and passed.
  BRADFORD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
  LAND DRAINAGE (SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL (RIVE DITCH IMPROVEMENT)) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
  WALSALL CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  Read 3ª (according; to Order), and passed.

  ENEMY PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
  2.41 p.m.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 2:
  Provisions as to making of certain payments and withholding of payments
  2.—(1) Where at a time within the period mentioned in the foregoing section—

  (a) a payment was made by or on behalf of any person to a competent authority, or

  (b) a payment was withheld (whether by way of refusal or of omission to make the payment) by or on behalf of any person, or

  (c) a payment was made by a competent authority to or for benefit of a person as being the person Who, but for the Act of 1939 or any order made thereunder, would have been entitled thereto,

  431
  then, if the payment was made or withheld in the circumstances specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of the foregoing section, it shall be deemed to have been authorised by the Act of 1939 notwithstanding that apart from this section it was not so authorised, and, in the case of a payment made as mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection, the making thereof shall be deemed to have operated, so far as the amount thereof extended, as a release of the person by or on whose behalf it was made.

  (2) Where, in the case of a payment made as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (c) of the last foregoing subsection, the payment (apart from that subsection) was not authorised by or under the Act of 1939,—

  (a) if the payment was a payment to a competent authority as mentioned in the said paragraph (a), nothing in that subsection shall be construed as preventing that authority from paying the amount thereof, or any part of that amount, to or for the benefit of any person to or for whose benefit the amount or part could lawfully have been paid apart from this section;

  (b) if the payment was a payment by a competent authority as mentioned in the said paragraph (c), nothing in that subsection shall prevent that authority from exercising any right of recovery in respect of the payment, being a right exercisable apart from this section.?

  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit Clause 2. The noble Lord said: My Lords, those of your Lordships who had the courage to sit through the Committee stage of this Bill will be fully aware of its great technical complexity. So mystified were the Opposition and those who advise us on the legal side of your Lordships' business as to the meaning of some of the clauses in the Bill that I felt it my duty to put down forty-eight Amendments, the majority of which, as I frankly admitted at the time, were probing Amendments, designed to get some statement from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in charge of the Bill, as to what the Bill was all about. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, agreed with me about the complexity of the measure, and he also agreed that the only way in which we could get explanations on various points as to which we were genuinely concerned, was to put down a series of Amendments to delete passages or clauses which we did not understand. That brought forth from the noble Lord very helpful replies, which we have studied with great care, and your Lordships must, I am sure, be relieved to see only a very few Amendments on the Marshalled List for this Report stage, and only one of those Amendments is for the
  432
  purpose of obtaining from the Government further explanation.
  The reason why there are no more Amendments of that nature is because of the courtesy and industry of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to thank him for his courtesy and the great amount of work he has done between Committee and Report stages to help the Opposition to understand the Bill and to meet us on every possible point. It is most refreshing, and I feel bound to say is in marked contrast to the experiences which Her Majesty's Opposition have had in your Lordships' House on occasions during the past Session. That makes it all the more acceptable. But while the noble Lord has satisfied me regarding the points we raised, unfortunately that satisfaction rests between the noble Lord and myself. The only way I could get that entered in the official record of the House, so that those of the general public who are interested in this matter could also have the explanation, would be by putting down about fifteen Amendments on Report stage and arguing the matter all over again, as the noble Lord and I have argued it for the last three weeks, personally and by correspondence; but I know the objections your Lordships have to turning Report stage into Committee stage.
  I should like to suggest to the noble Lord, and I hope he will convey it to the appropriate quarter, that it would be helpful to the House and to those interested outside in these highly technical legal matters, if a fuller Explanatory Memorandum were issued with a Bill of this sort, so that at least we could start off by knowing something about it. I must confess that my legal advisers have at times said to me, "We just do not understand what it is all about." All points except one, which arises in this first Amendment, have been satisfactorily dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I will not say he has satisfied me completely on many of these difficult matters, but I feel that the balance of argument was in his favour; and that is why I refrain from wearying your Lordships with a series of Amendments to get the noble Lord to explain it all to the House with the meticulous detail with which he has explained it to me.
  The reason for putting down this Amendment as an Amendment to delete

  433
  the whole clause is that I do not want to risk a rebuke for moving the deletion of what I might have thought to be the relevant subsection, but which is not. I thought that by seeking to delete the whole clause I should be on safe ground. Clause 2 deals with money which has found its way into the hands of the Custodian under the Enemy Property Act. Clause 3 deals with property which has found its way into the hands of the Custodian under the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939. There have been cases where property and money have found their way into the hands of the Custodian from people who were thought to be enemies, but who upon investigation turned out to be friends. Under Clause 3 the person who has had his property wrongfully appropriated has legal measures open to him to obtain the return of that property, but, as the noble Lord has explained to me, property and money are dealt with differently, and if an alleged enemy has had his money transferred to the Custodian and the Custodian realises that it was wrongfully pissed on to somebody else, the Custodian can obtain the money back, but the unfortunate person who has been robbed by this process has no redress at all. It seems to me, in natural justice, wrong that a man should be wrongfully deprived of his money and have no redress, whereas if he is wrongfully deprived of his chattels he has redress. That is the simple point upon which I should like some further elucidation.
  I feel certain that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will recite to me a long legal argument, or a short legal argument, whichever he feels disposed to make. But I do not feel inclined at the present moment to accept a legal argument in this matter. I think it is common sense and natural justice that money should be treated in this particular case on the same level as that of property. Later on we shall come to an Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, which bemuses me still more in relation to this point. That particular Amendment deals with interest accruing on money that has been wrongfully held but has been returned, and also interest accruing on property that has been acquired and sold. The noble Lord seems to recognise the equity of both cases in that Amendment, whereas here in Clause 2, in my view, he treats money differently from property. I
  434
  say that they should be treated in exactly the same way, and the person who has been wrongfully deprived of his money should be compensated in exactly the same way as the Government propose to compensate the individual who has been wrongfully deprived of his property.
  I hope that that explanation is clear to your Lordships. I move to delete this clause, in order to give the noble Lord an opportunity of further explanation. If he is satisfied with the correctness of the argument I have advanced, I hope that he, with that diligence which he has so well shown up to date, may think of an Amendment to put down on the next stage. We, at least, shall have the advantage of listening to his explanation, and if we find ourselves still in disagreement with him we can take the opportunity of putting down a further Amendment in due course. Obviously, I do not propose to press this Amendment; I have put it down merely in order to raise the point. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 2.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  2.52 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his kind references to my modest attempts help him steer his way through this Bill. It is a complicated Bill, and it is for that reason that the Government arranged a much longer interval of time between the various stages of the Bill than is normal, in order to allow those who had not the full benefit of professional advice to spend more time than usual upon its elucidation. But I do not think it is quite as complicated as the noble Lord makes out. Admittedly, I went into some considerable length of explanation on Second Reading, but I did point out that, although the principles of the Bill were straightforward and comparatively simple, it, was not a measure which lent itself to very clear and precise definition in its working There are many Bills such as that, and there are many Bills which do not lend themselves, even under the most expert draftsman's hand, to crystal-clear explanation. This, I am afraid, is one of them.
  So far from being a badly drafted Bill, it is in my opinion one of the best-drafted Bills I have ever seen. If the noble Lord is going to reproach us, I would ask him

  435
  to look at some of the Bills which were laid before us when he sat on this side of the House. I would commend to him for light bedside reading, if he wants it, Section 7 of the Leasehold Property Act, 1951, or Section 61 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Both of those are very well drafted sections but are extraordinarily difficult for the layman to understand. I will certainly convey to the proper quarter the request of the noble Lord that in future, with Bills such as this, we should have a fuller explanatory note. But I must, if I possibly can, defend the draftsman against any accusation of over-complex draftsmanship.
  LORD SILKIN: That is an interesting suggestion, and I welcome it. But it is not the length, so much as clarity in the Memorandum that we are concerned about. I recognise the importance of technical language and the necessity for it in a Bill. But in an explanation could we not have non-technical language, so that we can get an idea immediately as to what it is all about?
  LORD MANCROFT: I will certainly consider that. I have not read recently the Memorandum to this Bill, and the copy of the Bill I have in my hand does not contain it. However, I will look at it again. So far as I remember, it was not very complicated. I will certainly bear the point in mind and see whether, in future, the Memorandum attached to a Bill of this nature cannot be made as simple as possible.
  To turn to the point of the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has put before us this afternoon, I quite appreciate what worries him, and I know that it worries the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, as they mentioned it together on the Committee stage—namely, this difference between the rights of a non-enemy whose money had been paid to the Custodian and those of a non-enemy whose property wrongly came into the Custodian's hands. I will try and give the explanation asked for; it will not be legal and it will not be long. As the noble Lord rightly said, the main reason for the difference is the difference between the legal position in the case of dealings with money and in the case of dealings with property. For example, if a bank wrongly pays the Custodian money held for the account of Herr Schmidt who, in spite of his name, was
  436
  never an enemy, he might have had a remedy against the bank but not against the Custodian. On the other hand, if the bank were holding, say, jewellery in the name of Herr Schmidt, and had transferred it wrongly to the Custodian, Herr Schmidt could recover the jewellery from the Custodian. Clause 3 (4) (a) recognises this position and preserves these existing rights.
  This is the whole point of the matter, and I hope that in a sentence I can satisfy the noble Lord on it. Whilst I admit that the difference between the two does look to the layman a little odd at first sight, this is the explanation. It has always been the practice of the Board of Trade to direct the Custodian to release moneys wrongly paid to him. I can give the noble Lord the assurance that this practice will most certainly continue. Clause 2 (2) (a) has been expressly inserted in the Bill to allow of this. The point is that the practical position as between Herr Schmidt and the Custodian with regard to his money and with regard to his jewellery is, in point of fact, exactly the same in both cases. I hope that that explanation, which I like to think has been neither long nor legal, will satisfy the noble Lord that no injustice will take place.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I understand from the explanation which has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that in fact the Board of Trade intend to treat a wrongful disposition of money in the same way as wrongful dispositions of other property. But I am still quite unable to understand why that should not be included in the Bill, and why it should remain merely a matter, strictly speaking, of an ex gratia payment by the Board of Trade. That is a distinction for which I am still at a loss to find a reason. I know what the historical distinctions are between money and chattels or, to be more exact, between balances in a bank and chattels, because the law with regard to money, as a tangible, identifiable thing, consisting in coins or banknotes, is, as I understand it, exactly the same as the law with regard to other kinds of movable property. In modern times, of course, money which is paid into a bank is not identifiable as such any longer; it is merely an operation which creates a debt owing by the bank to its customer. In that sense, of

  437
  course, it is no longer analogous to any kind of tangible movable properly. But the practical effects of these operations are precisely the same, and I do not see why, in the one case, there should be a legal right to recover the property, and yet not to recover the money, in the other.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has only increased the dilemma. His reply was neither legal nor lengthy. As is his usual practice, the reply was concise and clear, but he said, in effect, "We shall not treat chattels and property any differently." As my noble friend Lord Douglas asked: "Then why not say so? However, we will look at this, and we will consider what the noble Lord has said. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us the undertaking that, in effect, the property in Clause 3 and the money in Clause 2 are to be treated in exactly the same way, so that no hardship will be caused. If that is so, I am surprised that it has not been put into the Bill and not just treated as a matter for an undertaking. Moreover, we now have it on the record, and perhaps that will satisfy us. Therefore, for the time being, at least, I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 [Income from moneys invested by custodian]:
  3.3 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, at the beginning of subsection (1) to insert, "Subject to the provisions of this section." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, and Amendment No. 4, which really go together, are the Government's attempt to meet what we felt was a very real uneasiness expressed by noble Lords opposite on this particular clause. Both my learned and noble friend the Lord Chancellor and I were, if I may say so quite frankly, impressed with the anxiety displayed by noble Lords opposite, but we have been at some considerable pains to try to produce a solution to this problem which we hope will meet the difficulty.
  I must confess that they are rather a formidable collection of Amendments, and they are, by and large, designed to meet the pressure brought against us on the
  438
  point that interest should be allowed to persons whose moneys have been wrongly paid to the Custodian and who have since had them back. This is the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, recently referred. The noble Lord made it clear to me that he was not asking that interest should be paid on money that was appropriated quite properly from people who were proved to be enemies, and that he was talking only about people who had their properly appropriated and who subsequently proved that they were not enemies. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, had the same type of case in mind, I imagine, when he referred to cases where money had been taken from people from whom there was no right in law or equity to take it. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested that the possibility of making ex gratia payments at an average rate of interest to such people should be considered, and this my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor undertook, on behalf of the Government, to do. We have gone into this matter carefully, and we have now tabled these Amendments.
  Briefly, their effect is this. Where money was paid to de Custodian as being due to an enemy, or the proceeds of property were transferred to the Custodian as being enemy property, but the money was not, in fact, due to an enemy, or the property was not enemy property, the person whose money is released to him by the Custodian is to be entitled to receive interest on it at the rate of three-quartets of 1 per cent. per annum for the period during which it was in the Custodian's hands, provided that, if the money has already been released, he makes a claim for the interest within a year of the passing of the Bill. Your Lordships will see, I hope—I particularly hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will see—that on one point at least we have gone even further than he asked us to go. We were asked to consider paying interest ex gratia. Under the Amendment, however, there is to be a statutory right to receive interest in the circumstances I have described. There have been many occasions on which, from both sides of the House, when we were variously in Government or in Opposition, that splendid clarion call "Put it in the Bill" has been made, and on an

  439
  equal number of occasions the Government have refused to "put it in the Bill." This is one of the rare occasions where the Opposition has not said, "Put it in the Bill," but where the Government have done so.
  Your Lordships will probably think that it is unnecessary to give details of this, but perhaps I should say one word as to why the rate of three-quarters of 1 per cent. has been decided upon, because at first appearance that is not a princely rate. It is as nearly as possible what the Custodian's general investments earned, on the average, in Treasury Bills and Ways and Means Advances. It seemed to be proper that the non-enemy should have what the Custodian earned. That is all there is to it. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would accept these Amendments in the spirit in which they are offered—namely, as a genuine attempt to meet what we felt, and still feel, was a genuine anxiety. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 39, at beginning insert the said words.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord, because there was a strong case against the Government's intentions in this Bill to withhold interest from innocent parties who have been deprived of their income by the appropriation of their principal. The Government had admitted that the principal should be returned, but in the original clause they said, "We are going to pay no interest." My noble friend Lord Chorley, my noble friend Lord Silkin and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, all joined in protest. We said that it was far from being fair, and I must confess that I was rather shocked when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack went to the length of denying that there was a prima facie case of injustice. I think there was a case of gross injustice, and this Amendment does the Government great credit. Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord and his advisers, and to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, for recognising the injustice and putting it right.
  The noble Lord says that this is a case where they have put it in the Bill without its being demanded by the Opposition. The noble Lord has scored
  440
  his boundary before the ball has been bowled, because that was the intention of the Amendment which I have on the Order Paper. I was going to say that I should divide your Lordships' House: we were going to ask you to put it in the Bill; so I am afraid that the noble Lord's middle stump is now reclining at a somewhat drunken angle. However, I am quite satisfied as far as I am concerned. Whether the noble Lord, Lord Chorley is, I do not know. The noble Lord has met our point accurately and adequately. I have no complaint about the twelve months period but I do not like the three-quarters of 1 per cent. I can assure your Lordships that the gentleman who sits in the Treasury and who can get only three-quarters of 1 per cent. on his investments is not going to handle much of my money, if I can help it. He had better take lessons from the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. Perhaps I can assist, and together, perhaps, we can see how we can get a little better than three-quarters of 1 per cent. But if that is the average amount earned by the Custodian, in the admittedly restricted field of his allowable investments, I am quite happy. May I once again thank the noble Lord very much. It reflects great credit on the Department that they have recognised this point, and we on this side of the House accept their Amendments with thanks.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank the Government for accepting the suggestions made on this point from both sides of the House. I rise on only one small point. Speaking extempore and loosely at the time, I suggested a figure of 2½ per cent. or 3 per cent. as being the sort of interest that might be payable. That, of course, was quite wrong. On reflection, I consider three-quarters of 1 per cent. is quite proper as the rate which the Custodian's balances must have been earning at that time. I hope that any would-be recipients who happen to read the Report of our debates will not feel that they have been defrauded by getting, only three-quarters of I per cent. when I originally suggested 2½ per cent.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Government. I felt very shocked at what seemed to me rather shabby conduct, but it has been put right and I think it is much better that the concession should appear specifically in the Bill, rather than in the shape

  441
  of an undertaking. But while one ought not to look a gift-horse in the mouth, there is one point I wish to make, and that is the short limitation period attaching to claims. Twelve months is a very short period for such claims. There may well be cases in which the man whose property was appropriated is dead, and there may be difficulty over his personal representative stepping in; so that the period may be up before they know where they are. I would suggest to the Government that they might give a discretion, in proper cases, to have the period lengthened. That is quite a common thing, as the noble Lord knows, in these limitation cases. The noble Lord knows well that twelve months soon slip away, and therefore I hope the Government will take a discretion to lengthen, in proper cases, the period of twelve months.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 6, at end insert—
  "( ) Where a custodian, whether after or before the passing of this Act, pays or has paid to any person a capital sum on the footing that—

  (a) it represents or represented money which was paid to the custodian as being money due to an enemy, but which was not in fact money due to an enemy, or

  (b) it represents or represented the proceeds of property which was transferred to the custodian as being enemy property, but which was not in fact enemy property,

  the person to whom the capital sum is or was paid shall be entitled to receive from the custodian interest thereon at the rate of three-quarters of one per cent. per annum from the date on which the custodian received the money referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection or the proceeds referred to in paragraph (b) thereof, as the case may be, to the date of payment of the capital sum:
  Provided that—

  (i) where the payment of the capital sum was made before the passing of this Act, the right to interest thereon under this subsection shall not arise unless a claim for it in writing is made to the custodian within one year from the elate of the passing of this Act and there is produced to the custodian such evidence in support of the claim as the custodian may reasonably require; and

  (ii) where in such a case the person to whom the capital sum was paid has since died, or any other event has occurred whereby the right to the interest, if vested in him immediately before that event, would thereupon have vested in some other person, the right to claim the interest shall be treated as having devolved as if that right had been vested in him immediately before his death or immediately before that event,
  442
  as the case may are, if the right is duly exercised, the interest shall be paid to the persons claiming under him accordingly.

  ( ) For the purpose of making payments of interest under the last foregoing subsection a custodian who at the passing of this Act has in his hands, or thereafter receives, any income such as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall set aside out of that income such sums as the Treasury may from time to time direct; and out of any sums so set aside the custodian shall pay any interest becoming payable by him under the last foregoing subsection and shall pay the balance thereof (if any) into the Exchequer.
  ( ) In this section the expression "money due to an enemy" means money which would, but for the existence of a state of war, have been payable to or for the benefit of a person who was an enemy within the meaning of the Act of 1939."—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given notice of an Amendment to add to subsection (2):
  "or as preventing the payment of a sum in lieu of interest in respect of any moneys the payment of which is authorised or permitted by this Act."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not wish to move this Amendment, but I should like to support what my noble friend has said. I quite understand the reason far the twelve-months period, but will the noble Lord give us an assurance that that time limitation will be used with discretion? This is a case where we are not seeking to have it put in the Bill, but when lawyers get on to these matters twelve months is but an hour. If the noble Lord can give us that undertaking we shall appreciate it very much. I do not intend now to proceed with this Amendment because the point has been so well met by the noble Lord in Amendment No. 4.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I think, as a matter of fact—the noble Lord who speaks on behalf of the Government will correct me if I an; wrong—that if the time limit is twelve months there is no discretion to extend it. If the noble Lord is impressed with the point, as I hope he is, the Amendment may need some modification.
  Clause 9:
  Disclosure of information about inventions, etc., in breach' of contract
  (2) For the purposes of this section a certificate issued by or on behalf of the Minister or Board in charge of a Government department stating that, in disclosing or supplying

  443
  to any person any information, model for document specified in the certificate, a person so specified was acting at the request of that department, and for a purpose which appeared to that department to be in the interests of the defence of the realm or otherwise in the public interest, shall in any proceedings be conclusive evidence of the facts so stated.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS) moved, in subsection (2) to leave out all words from and including "issued" down to "stating" and to insert, "signed by a Minister of the Crown." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a matter with which I dealt on the Committee stage, and perhaps I might move this Amendment now. The Amendment is designed to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the Committee stage. Your Lordships may remember that there was some discussion as to the certificates to be given by the Minister or by the Department in order to prove certain matters which were not easily susceptible of proof, and there was some discussion as to whether such certificates should be merely sufficient evidence or should be "conclusive evidence." On Clause 9 of the Bill, which deals with disclosure of information about inventions, it was suggested by Lord Lucas that the certificate, which must, I think, admittedly be conclusive evidence of the facts stated in it, should be issued not simply
  "by or on behalf of the Minister or Board in charge of a Government Department."
  but should be signed by a Minister of the Crown himself. I undertook to look into that, and I have come to the conclusion, and have so advised Her Majesty's Government, that this is a case in which that form of certificate should be accepted. Accordingly, this Amendment provides for leaving out in subsection (2) of Clause 9 the words after "certificate"
  "issued by or on behalf of the Minister or Department in charge of a Government Department."
  and for substituting the words
  "signed by a Minister of the Crown."
  There is a drafting Amendment at line 24 on the same page to give effect to that Amendment. I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 20, leave out from ("certificate") to ("stating") in line 22 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord for meeting us on this particular point? He is quite right; on the Committee stage we accepted the noble and learned Lord's arguments as to the necessity for this. He made it quite clear to us, and all we wanted was the lucid explanation which we received. We felt, however, that in these cases, where the certificateis to be conclusive, it should be authorised by the highest authority, a Minister of the Crown, and we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for meeting us in this way. We accept the Amendment with pleasure.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 24, leave out ("that department") and insert ("a Government department so specified").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  THE GOLD COAST PUBLIC SERVICE
  3.20 p.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, may I, with your permission, intervene at this moment in order to make a statement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is making in another place this afternoon? The statement is as follows:
  "I am circulating with the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of a statement which the Prime Minister of the Gold Coast made yesterday in the Legislative Assembly about the future of the Gold Coast Public Service with particular reference to overseas officers. The statement recognises that, to maintain an efficient administrative machine, the Gold Coast Government will for some years to come need the services of overseas officers. The Gold Coast Government therefore guarantee to overseas officers pensions and terms of service no less favourable than those obtaining to-day, and the maintenance of the principle of promotion by merit alone.
  "The statement proposes the introduction not later than July, 1954, of the first stage of a two-stage scheme of compensation, additional to normal

  445
  pensions, for serving officers retiring before their time. It suggests that, after the scheme has been approved by the Gold Coast Legislative Assembly and by the Secretary of State, it should form part of any constitutional settlement reached between Her Majesty's Government and the Gold Coast Government.
  "I welcome this statement and the intention of the Gold Coast Government which it proclaims, to retain the services of overseas officers under satisfactory conditions of service. I also warmly welcome the ready recognition by the Gold Coast Government of their responsibility to compensate officers whose conditions of appointment may be affected by future constitutional changes, and their desire to work out a fair and reasonable scheme."
  Following is the statement of the Prime Minister of the Gold Coast:
  "Mr. Speaker: I seek your permission to make an important statement on the future of the Public Service with particular reference to overseas officers. The occasion for making this statement arises from the proposals in the White Paper, which envisage a change in the position of officers for whom the Secretary of State is responsible. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is particularly concerned with two important aspects of this problem. First, how to help the successful development of the country by continuing to provide overseas staff as requested by the Gold Coast Government, and by supporting the expressed desire of this Government to encourage overseas officers to remain in the Service for as long as they are needed. Secondly, he wishes to fulfil his obligations towards officers holding Secretary of State's appointments.
  "This Government for its part realises that it must have an efficient administrative machine to give effect to Government policy and it is at one with the Secretary of State in its desire to ensure that the responsibility towards officers holding Secretary of State's appointments is fully discharged. In this respect the Gold Coast would not wish to be any less conscious of its responsibilities than were the Governments of India, Pakistan and Ceylon.
  "But having said this, I wish to emphasise that in the context of this statement the countries which I have mentioned do not provide an exact analogy with the Gold Coast. At the time they achieved independence all of them had a Public Service which was largely indigenous. In my October statement or constitutional reform, I remarked that in the Gold Coast political advance had outstripped the Africanization of the Public Service. We find ourselves, therefore, on the threshold of independence having to rely far more on the services of overseas officers than was the case
  446
  in India and the other countries which I have mentioned. The Africanisation of the Public Service has made great strides in recent times and the Government is doing everything possible compatible with efficiency to accelerate the pace of Africanisation. We have more than laid the foundations of the African Civil Service of the future. But the fact must be faced that for some years to come we shall have to continue to rely on the services of overseas officers. It is therefore imperative that we should make our attitude clear towards this class of officer, and that the officers themselves should know where they stand. I am aware that on the eve of fundamental constitutional charges which inevitably involve a change of conditions of their service, there is a feeling of uncertainty regarding their future among serving officers. I want to allay this uncertainty by assuring overseas officers that a fully self governing Gold Coast will need and want their services and that their interests will be fully safeguarded.
  "I will now outline the general principles which Government propose to adopt. At the outset, I would remark that one of the main considerations is to provide a breathing space during which the transition to a Gold Coast Local Service can be completed as smoothly as possible. We seek to avoid any sudden exodus of overseas officers and by safeguarding their future to induce them to remain. While appreciating the need for accelerated Africanization. Government do not propose that this should be achieved at the expense of efficiency, or that promotion in the Service should be on the basis of colour. At the same time, changed conditions of service will be recognised by the introduction of a scheme for compensation. The timetable for this scheme is related more to the need for achieving a smooth transition than to the programme for constitutional reform.
  "Before I embark on the details of the timetable I should like to give certain general assurances.
  "We guarantee pensions and reasonable terms of service which will be no less favourable than chose obtaining today, and we propose to maintain the principle that promotion is by merit alone. This is without prejudice to a policy under which special facilities will be accorded to Africans to enable them to compete on merit with overseas officers. All overseas officers desiring to do so will have the right to join the Local Service.
  "I come now to the details of our proposals. A scheme will be introduced not later than July, 1954, under which serving officers will be permitted to retire, if they so desire, with a compensatory allowance in addition to their earned pension. This arrangement takes into consideration that the proposals for the next constitutional advance will result in a diminution of existing safeguards, but will not amount to a radical change. I have in mind the possible disappearance of ex-officio Ministers; the consultations with Prime Minister in regard to the filling of certain higher posts in the Civil Service and in respect of appointments to the Public Service Commission; the attachment of the Establishment Secretary to the Office of the Prime Minister; and the

  447
  proposal to create training posts in the interests of accelerated Africanisation. I want to make it quite clear, however, that these changes are in no way intended to prejudice the principle emphasised in the White Paper that the Public Service should he free from political control or influence.
  "There will be no super session of serving officers on the grounds of race; the Public Service Commission, however, would have discretion to widen the field of recruitment to promotion posts if, in their opinion, there were not officers in the Service of sufficient experience and of the necessary calibre to fill any specific appointment, or in the case of newly created posts to which special conditions apply.
  "Not more than two years after the introduction of the scheme of compensatory allowance, Government will introduce a scheme of lump sum compensation, as has been done elsewhere. The details of this scheme are still the subject of actuarial examination. At this stage, any officer who desires to do so would have the alternative of retiring with his ordinary pension and compensatory allowance.
  "In the case of African officers, it is considered that sentiments of patriotism will impel them to continue to serve their country and that they can look for a positive improvement in their prospects. Nevertheless, it has been agreed in view of the Secretary of State's responsibility for those African officers who have not opted to join the Local Service that any African officer holding a Secretary of State's appointment who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that his position and prospects in the Service have been prejudiced, or that he has legitimate cause for anxiety about his future in the Service, should be permitted to retire under the compensation scheme. This is in accordance with the precedent afforded by India, but it is anticipated that such cases would be rare, if any occurred at all.
  "At the request of the Gold Coast Government, the Secretary of State has agreed that officers for whom he has a responsibility and who by the end of the transitional period join the Gold Coast Local Service will continue thereafter to be eligible for transfer within the Colonial Service. Officers accepting transfer without a break in service to equivalent pensionable posts elsewhere would have no right to compensation; but those remaining in the Gold Coast Local Service would have a continuing right to retire with either form of compensation.
  "The representatives of the Association of Senior Civil Servants have already been informed of these proposals and will be further consulted before they are finalised. It is intended that after finality has been reached on these proposals which are subject to the approval of this Assembly and of the Secretary of State, the arrangements will be confirmed in any Constitutional Settlement arrived at with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. I trust that in the result the future of the Public Service in the Gold Coast will be assured, and that this country, whatever Government is in power, will be able to rely on the loyalty and efficiency of the members of that Service."
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for this Statement, particularly because I hope and believe that it will encourage recruitment to the Colonial Service. As your Lordships are aware, the main deterrent to young men who contemplate a career in the Colonial Service has been the uncertainty and insecurity of their future. The Gold Coast Government have shown that they wish to continue to employ European officers, and on the same conditions of service as they have enjoyed hitherto. I hope that this will have very considerable publicity and that it will encourage young men to go into that branch of the public service which is second to none in its combination of service and adventure.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, as one who succeeded the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, as Minister Resident in West Africa, may I say with what pleasure we hear that the irreplaceable services of these officers, many of whom have given a lifetime on the Gold Coast, are still going to be at the disposal of the Gold Coast Government.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, may I, in reply, say that I heartily concur in everything the noble Lord says. I feel certain that my right honourable friend will welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye.

  ENEMY PROPERTY BILL
  3.24 p.m.
  Report stage resumed.
  Clause 13:
  Interpretation of Part 11
  "interest," in relation to any patent, registered design or copyright, includes any rights conferred by a licence under the patent or registered design or as the case may be, by a licence in respect of the copyright;
  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved to leave out the definition of "interest." The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 to Clause 13 march together. They are really only drafting Amendments. I have put them down following some criticism which was expressed at the Committee stage of the wide terms of the definition of "German enemy interest." I explained that under Clause 13 (2) of the Bill, claims by a

  449
  person claiming in right of an interest created out of a German enemy interest were to be barred, and I said that I believed this was doing no injustice. We have, however, decided that we ought to make it explicit (it is already implicit in the Bill) that a licence under a patent is not to be, regarded as an interest created out of the patent. I hope the Amendments make this clear. The position therefore is that a person in this country who holds a licence granted by the Comptroller General under the Patents, Designs, Copyright and Trade Marks (Emergency) Act, 1939, under a German-owned patent is not barred from prosecuting an action for infringement. It is really only a drafting Amendment and I think it is quite uncontroversial. I hope your Lordships will accept it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  page 15, leave out lines 9 to 12.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is only indicative of the extent to which the noble Lord has gone to help in every point that has been raised. This is, as he quite rightly says, a minor point; but although it is minor we are no less grateful to him for it. We accept it with pleasure.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 35, at end insert—
  ("(4) References in this Part of this Act to interests in a patent, registered design or copyright shall be taken to include any rights conferred by a licence under the patent or registered design or, as the case may be, by a licence in respect of the copyright; but for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section any rights so conferred in the case of a patent, registered design or copyright shall not be treated as being art interest created out of the proprietorship of the patent, design or copyright.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following new clause:
  " .—(1) Nothing in this Act shall so operate as to defeat any claim by any person who during the period from the third day of September, nineteen hundred and flirty-nine until the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-five was, on the ground of his or her race, religion, ideology or political conviction deprived of, or restricted in regard to, his or her liberty, or injured in respect of life and health.
  450
  (2) This Act shall not apply if the effect of its application would be that a person who did not at any time between the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine until the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-five possess nationality of a state at war with His late Majesty's Government and who is at the time of the date of this Act a national of a foreign slate which was not at any time during the aforesaid period at war with His late Majesty's Government would thereby be deprived of any property, asset, title, right or other interest without receiving full compensation in respect thereof.
  (3) Nothing in this Act shall so operate as to defeat any claim against any person who or whose predecessor in title has supplied false information to an authority purporting to act under the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939, in connection with the payments withholding of payments or other dealings in respect of which the claim but for the operation of this Act would arise."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I moved at the Committee stage and withdrew on the statement made by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, that the Government would make ex gratia payments, up to a certain point at any rate, to some of the persons whom the Amendment was designed to protect. I withdrew the Amendment stating that I should like to look more carefully at the wording of the noble and learned Lord's statement. I have put down the Amendment again in order to get, I hope, a further elucidation of that statement. The noble and learned Lord said that it had been carefully worded. It is a very cautious statement indeed. It reads:
  "Her Majesty's Government do not wish to rule out"—
  I could have hoped for a rather stronger expression than that—
  "the possibility"—
  again, very vague—
  "of ex gratia payments of compensation being made exceptionally to British or Allied subjects where serious wrong has been done resulting in grave hardship."
  It certainly is protected by a series of very strong adjectives at every turn. I do not know whether the Government would be prepared to be a little more generous. What I am particularly worried about is that it is confined to British or Allied subjects. My own Amendment was not so confined, and I should like the noble and learned Lord, or the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, if he is going to reply, to say whether the promise would cover, for example, an

  451
  Israeli subject, who might very well be in this sort of position and who would, I think your Lordships would agree, have strong claims to reasonably generous treatment in the circumstances.
  As a result of the publication of our discussions on this matter on Second Reading and the Committee stage, I have received a number of communications relating to the administration of the original Acts, the Trading with the Enemy Act and the Distribution of Enemy Property Act, 1949, which seem to me to indicate that this has not been conducted in quite the generous spirit which the noble and learned Lord claimed in the earlier part of his speech in reply to my own speech at the Committee stage. I am very anxious to secure that the concessions, limited and tied up as they are in regard to these ex gratia payments, will be administered in a rather less niggardly, indeed, in a more generous, spirit.
  Let me take a concrete case of what I mean. I believe that the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency reached agreement that property of enemies who had been victims of Nazi persecution—religious, racial or other persecution—and whose property in this country had been sequestered, should have it returned to them. That was an ex gratia arrangement, and the noble and learned Lord very properly took credit for that policy. I will not read the words, but your Lordships will find them in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 182 (No.77), Col. 1145. Incidentally I think we ought to note that this is an agreed policy with other Allied Governments and that we in this country have not any monopoly of generosity in this respect. Indeed I am rather afraid that our own administration of this agreement has been a little less generous than that of at any rate some other countries. I pause at this stage to say that when the noble and learned Lord drew our attention to generosity in respect of the administration of this agreement, he did not, in fact, give an undertaking that a similar generosity will be applied to cases coming under this Bill. I imagine that that was inadvertence on his part, and I hope that I may take it that the generosity will be the same.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
  LORD CHORLEY: On the assumption that that is so, I ask that the Government should extend these ex gratia payments not only to those sufferers from Nazi oppression who had a direct legal interest in the property which has been sequestrated, but also to those who had a beneficial interest. We are now getting into rather technical legal fields. I understand that the Board of Trade have ignored beneficial interests and have confined these ex gratia payments to those who had legal interests. I think this is a very important matter and I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would give his attention to it.
  I will illustrate the point from a concrete case which has been brought to my notice and particulars of which I have roughly indicated in a note which I sent to the noble and learned Lord. It relates to the case of two Jews in Roumania, but the principle of the thing seems to me to be the same, whether they were in Roumania or in any other enemy territory, as Roumania was, of course, for a period during the war. These two Jews were in partnership and the partnership owned property in London, which property was sequestrated. If they had been individual citizens and had made claims these would have been met under the inter-Allied Agreement, but as they were in partnership I understand that the point was taken that by Roumanian law a partnership is a legal entity and therefore it was an enemy legal entity and that the arrangement did not apply to such; and these two Jews, one of whom had fled to Israel whilst the other had got away to France, have been refused the ex gratia payments, which they would have been entitled to if they were making individual claims and had not been a partnership. I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is a narrow and rather inequitable view to take of such a position. In English law, of course, a partnership is not a legal entity at all, and therefore this rather narrow ruling could not have been given.
  Another and even more important application of the same principle is furnished by limited companies or corporations. A corporation may be of enemy nationality by virtue of the fact that it is registered in an enemy country, yet many of its shareholders may be British or Allied nationals, or individuals who have been the victims of Nazi

  453
  oppression. Nevertheless, I understand that since a corporation is a legal entity, the concession to individuals has not been applied, since the shareholders have no legal interest in the property which, of course, belongs technically to the corporation and not to its members, who have only a beneficial interest. I suggest that again the officials responsible hate taken a rather narrow, legalistic attitude in regard to this matter. A similar and even more unfair position arises in connection with a corporation which, while technically British because it is registered in this country, or Allied since the registration is in an Allied country, was enemy controlled because the majority of the shareholding and control were held in enemy territory. Legal members of your Lordships' House will remember the famous Daimler case, decided during the First World War, in which it was held that although the corporation was technically British it was to be treated as an enemy corporation. In this type of corporation there may be a substantial shareholding belonging to British or Allied nationals, or, again, belonging to victims of Nazi oppression; but again the technical point is taken that since it is an enemy controlled corporation these ex gratia payments cannot be made to those who have a beneficial interest of that kind.
  I submit that to expropriate the holdings of such people is to take a purely legal and formalistic view of the situation, and to shut one's eyes to the real equity of the matter and to the economic position. Indeed, this seems to have been recognised up to a point, because in certain agreements which were entered into between this country and Allied countries—such as the one with the Netherlands—specific provision was made for covering points of this sort; which makes it all the more unfortunate, I think, that it should have been taken against these unfortunate people in other cases. I understand that in the United States non-enemy interests in German-tainted corporations (whose assets in America are subject to confiscation) under the amended Trading with the Enemy Act are exempted from confiscation. This has been recognised in two important and well-known decisions in the Supreme Court, which I dare say are known to the noble and learned Lord—one is the
  454
  Kaufmann case and the other is the case of the Oberzee Finance Corporation. I do suggest that we in this country should take at any rate as generous a view as has been taken there. It is disturbing to find this more legalistic, narrow, inequitable view taken by officials who are administering this legislation in this country.
  Of course, I appreciate that officials have to administer according to the letter of the law, and have to leave it to their political chieftains to take a rather wider and more generous view. I understand that when the Distribution of Enemy Property Bill was before Parliament, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade then gave an undertaking that he would personally look at the cases where it was claimed that a more generous view ought to be taken. I have not had time to find the reference to that, but I suggest that something of the same kind might well be done in connection with this Bill. It may well be that in some of these cases there are legal rights which could, in fact, be enforced in the courts. I do not know about that. I understand that there are possibilities of some actions being brought. But many of these claimants are small people living in far away places like Israel. They are refugees from Germany and enemy territories, and for them to find the sinews of war for legal action is really quite impossible.
  I am inclined to agree with the noble and learned Lord when he contended that a situation of this kind is best dealt with by liberal administration rather than by actions in the courts consuming large sums of money. I hope that be will impress upon the Board of Trade the necessity for liberal and generous administration of the kind that I have indicated, and that if it is not felt that such payments could properly be made within the spirit of the Inter-Allied Reparations Agreement, the Government should consider setting up some compensation fund out of which it could be done. I should like to pray in aid for a moment the position which exists in connection with enemy prizes taken at sea. Very often, when an enemy ship is taken at sea it is found that there is a beneficial interest of some British or Allied citizen who may have a mortgage on it or something of the kind. It has been laid down in the Prize Court time after time that

  455
  that is no reason why the vessel should not be declared prize. But the British mortgagee or other person with a beneficial interest, even a neutral, is, I understand, always given compensation out of a fund which exists at the Admiralty. I suggest that, since this situation is essentially similar, a similar policy should be pursued in this case.
  As I said on the previous occasion, the policy of expropriation pursued in this Bill is exceedingly dangerous for a country such as our own. The citizens of this country have property all over the world—there are few countries in which British citizens do not own property. Moreover, it is particularly dangerous at this particular point—that of the beneficial interests of the British investors in shares in corporations which are registered in foreign countries. I have already referred to the case of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Many of these corporations own other property, such as railways, tram services, mines, and other important assets which the Governments of the countries concerned may well deem it in the national interest at some stage or another to take over. As we all know, in a number of cases they have already done so. I believe it is generally accepted as a principle of International Law that such corporations should not be expropriated without compensation to the individual shareholders. If we in this country, in the administration of this enemy property legislation, disregard the beneficial interests of the individual shareholders in companies of this kind, we can hardly expect foreign Governments to respect the rights of our own citizens when similar cases occur in those countries. Therefore I hope that on grounds not only of justice but of expediency the Government will give careful attention to this matter.
  There is one further point which I should like to ask about. I appreciate that I have taken up rather a lot of your Lordships' time but I think these are matters of some importance. I understand that the policy of ex-gratia payments to victims of Nazi oppression has been limited, in this country at any rate, to cases where the victimisation was on racial or religious grounds, and has been denied to victims of political oppression. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord
  456
  Chancellor, in answering me at the Committee stage, said that if the first part of my Amendment were accepted, the only people who would gain from it would be Communists—at least, I understood that that was what he was saying. I do not think it is likely that many claims by Communists will be received by the Board of Trade. I understand that there have been a number of claims by Social Democrats, and that the officials of the Board of Trade have taken the view that the Inter-Allied Agreement applies only to cases of religious or racial persecution, and have rejected their claims. I have not been able to obtain actual details of cases of that kind, but I am assured there have been such cases. Obviously it is very unfair if it is so. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, if he would look into this matter and give me an assurance that such cases will not be rejected on the grounds that a man is a victim of Nazi oppression because he was a Social Democrat rather than because he was a Jew. I beg to move the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 15, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chorley.)
  3.45 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps it will be convenient if I deal with this Amendment also as I dealt with the matter on the Committee stage. On the Committee stage, I endeavoured to answer fully the case which the noble Lord made for this Amendment. He has put it down again. I do not feel that it would be fair to your Lordships to inflict upon you the speech which I made on that occasion. In fact, it appears to me—if I may say so, with great respect to the noble Lord—that what he has done is to put down an Amendment and then to make a speech which really has no relevance to the Amendment at all. This is an indemnity Bill, a Bill providing for indemnity for persons who have dealt with the property of persons who were not enemies on the footing that they were. It provides indemnity for those people. That is the substance and the nature of the Bill. The Amendment which the noble Lord has put down provides that nothing in the Bill which is an indemnity Bill, for the purposes and with the provisions that I have described,

  457
  shall operate so as to defeat claims—by whom? By enemies who happen to be enemies bearing a particular characteristic—that they have suffered by reason of their ideology or their faith, or something like that. Therefore, the Amendment is wholly irrelevant to the Bill. I think if accepted it would effect nothing at all.
  Upon that Amendment, the noble Lord proceeds to deal with the question of ex gratia payments. With great respect to the noble Lord, the Amendment is irrelevant to the Bill, and his speech is irrelevant to the Amendment. When the matter was before the House at the Committee stage, realising the sincerity of the noble Lord—indeed, sharing many of his feelings in the matter—I went out of my way to explain (although it was irrelevant) what this and the preceding Government had done in the way of making ex gratia releases. I went on to make a carefully prepared statement as to what Her Majesty's Government would do in the future. Beyond that I am not prepared to go one jot. Of course, everything the noble Lord has said will be conveyed to the appropriate quarter, and if it is thought wise to extend the system of ex gratia releases, which both by the preceding Government and by this has been consistently adopted, since 1946 when the Agreement was made with the other Allied Powers, to which the noble Lord has referred, if it should be thought fit to depart from that practice, then no doubt a departure would be made. It would be quite wrong for me to give the noble Lord any assurance that any such departure will be made.
  It is true, as the noble Lord has said, that the Agreement was made in 1946. Rules were drawn up—I will not say rules which were to be binding, but rules which were recommended for the treatment of those German nationals, those enemies who were thought to have suffered for their faith. Special arrangements were made by all the Allies as to the way in which they were to be treated. It is true that, in this country at least, individual enemies have been treated in a different way from the treatment of enemy corporations and partnerships. I
  458
  think that was probably entirely due to the great difficulty of administration, when it is a case of attempting to ascertain what share in a corporation beneficially belongs to a particular individual, and soon. That, I believe, is the reason for it. At any rate, that was the practice adopted in 1946 by the late Socialist Government, and which has been adopted and carried out by this Government. Though I fully appreciate the depth and sincerity of the noble Lord's feelings in this matter, he cannot expect me, in respect of an Amendment which is wholly irrelevant to this Bill—but which might very well be relevant to the 1949 Bill which dealt with the distribution of enemy property—to give him such assurances as he has suggested. Although, as I have said, what the noble Lord said will be conveyed to the proper authority, I cannot accept this Amendment, nor can I give the noble Lord such assurances as he has asked for.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I cannot agree that this Amendment is altogether irrelevant to this Bill. The Bill is directed not only to indemnifying officials but also to legalising the taking away of property from certain people. The Bill is directed to sequestrating the property of a certain class of people, and an Amendment such as this, directed to taking a certain group of people out of that is, in my submission, perfectly relevant. My main object was, as I hoped, to obtain rather more generous assurances from Her Majesty's Government. I am very sorry that I have not been able to do so. Whether it was the last Government or this Government who do it, I submit that it is completely unjust to treat the owners of beneficial interests in corporations and partnerships in any other way than individual owners of property rights are treated. The sooner such an unjust system is brought to an end the better. At any rate, I have had an opportunity of ventilating this matter in public and I hope, now that it has been admitted that this has been going on, pressure will be brought to bear on the Government to bring this iniquitous system to an end. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL
  3.51 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY): My Lords, I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I move formally that this Bill be read a Second time, then listen to the course of the debate and, with the permission of the House, speak at the end of it. I hope that course has your Lordships' approval. I believe that it will be for the convenience of the House. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)
  3.52 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I do not propose to deal generally with the Army on the Second Reading of this Bill, because there was an opportunity for the House to do so on Lord Ogmore's Motion a short time ago; but there are three points I should like to make. The first is about the Territorial Army. I regret that I was prevented from taking part in the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord. Lord Ogmore, for a number of speeches were made about the Territorial Army. I should like to speak now because I feel that, as a result of that debate, the House may have an unduly pessimistic view of the state of the Territorial Army, partly because some misleading information was given and partly because some of the figures used in that debate, although correct, were not used in quite the right context. Another reason why I want to say a word or two is that I have just come back from a visit to a Territorial Army camp of a unit which I know well, and there I found no despondency of the kind which has been referred to in this House and elsewhere.
  The real trouble is the question of whether the original volunteers—by which I mean those who were recruited in 1948, when the Territorial Army was restarted—will remain in the force until the National Service volunteers begin to volunteer in sufficient numbers and gain sufficient experience to take command in all ranks. That is a problem which was
  460
  foreseen when the Territorial Army was started in its present form in conjunction with National Service. It was also realised, when the first appeal for recruits was made in 1948, that a large number of people would join, and that many of them would run off four or five years later. What is happening now is exactly what was foreseen. There is only one thing that might have happened differently—that is, the previous Government might have started the Territorial Army two years before they did, in which case the process would have been two years further advanced. The National Service volunteers would then have been coming in for two years longer, and it would not have been necessary to rely during those two years on people who had experience of the war and, of course, who were getting no more numerous and no younger. I think the position is that, although the original volunteers are running out, as we expected, the National Service volunteers are coming along in adequate numbers and are obtaining experience fast enough to be able to take over as N.C.Os. and as officers from the original volunteers when the time comes for them to leave the units.
  I was glad to see that, in the Statement which accompanied the Army Estimates, the Secretary of State referred to the importance of dealing fairly with the National Service volunteers. That is the main problem of the Territorial Army now. These National Service volunteers are the people in their generation who would have volunteered for the Territorial Army if there had not been National Service. The National Service men themselves represent those people who in former times would have done their first four-year period of enlistment, and the National Service volunteers represent the people who would have carried on from that first period of enlistment, or commissioned service, in such a way as to take posts of higher responsibility. There is no reason to suppose that the same number of people will not be forthcoming now as in former years. Anyone who looks back at the statistics of the Territorial Army, and the Volunteer Force before that, will see that there was a steady figure of about 200,000, which varied very little except when there was a scare of war. That figure represents the number of people whose hobby it is to do Territorial Army service, and there is every reason

  461
  to suppose that that number of people will go on volunteering if the conditions are made right for them to do so.
  I am glad to know that the Secretary of State for War is now giving urgent attention to this problem. I think the two directions in which his attention is required are, first, to see that Territorial Army leaders are not burdened with administration, and secondly, to recognise that, while no one expects to make money out of his Territorial Army service, equally no one expects to be out of pocket. Both these questions can be ascertained by methods common in business life, by time study and cost investigation. A good deal of work has been done on that already, but while I am delighted that the Secretary of State is having these inquiries made, I feel that I should issue a word of warning. When evidence is produced, it is necessary that it should be accepted and acted on, whether it is the evidence the War Office want to see or whether it is not. I say that because three or four years ago an outside inquiry by experts produced a Report, known as the Hamlyn Report, which certainly did not get a cordial reception in the War Office. A long time was taken discussing the figures, although the evidence was clear (this was before the present Government took office), and at the end the thing petered out. It is no good producing evidence on these questions, if it is not acted on in time to be reflected in the following year's Estimates. If the evidence is not what is wanted, it is no good spinning out the matter until the Estimates season is passed. I have put the matter frankly, but I do not think I am wrong in doing so.
  I want to say only one other thing about the Territorial Army. I have no special knowledge of anti-aircraft units, but it may be that in these units there are some special considerations which make the position more difficult for them than it is in the Territorial Army as a whole. If so, I hope that these special considerations will not be regarded as applying to the rest of the Territorial Army, but will be dealt with separately. To sum up, I hope that the Secretary of State will stand firm on the original plan, which I am confident is the right one and will work. I hope that he will prosecute his inquiries with the greatest vigour, will accept the evidence which he receives and act on it without delay.
  462
  I come now to my second point, which is the problem of the "dead end boys" who come into the Army through National Service. This is a problem which has existed for a long time. There always has been a large body of National Service men of low intelligence qualifications and low physical standard who do not go into field force units, and do not spend the last six months of their National Service being trained for battle. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, may remember that, when he was answering for the War Office, I raised this question at the time when National Service was being extended. These men remain in depôts, in Ordnance Corps and Pioneer Corps establishments, and so forth—they are the "Queen's hard bargains." In those units where they go, in the nature of things, man management is bound not to be so good as in the field force units.
  This matter has recently come to a head in public through the trial of two soldiers from a depôt in Shropshire for armed assault: one was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm, and the other of manslaughter. But although those things have attracted attention in the newspapers, they are noting new. It has been known in Shropshire for a long time that these things have been going on. These affrays which take place in the streets of the towns are the effect, and not the cause, of the trouble. Some of the trouble is caused by failure of man management; some of it is caused by failure to realise that these young soldiers are really probation types. I should like to read to your Lordships a short extract from the report given by the defending officer at the trial of one man, as reported in the local newspapers, and confirmed by the High Sheriff, who was at the trial. The soldier was said to be most satisfactory. The officer went on:
  "It was his job to keep the garden tidy at a sub-depôt. He also did odd jobs, such as making seed boxes."
  If you give young soldiers of that kind jobs which are unsatisfying, which lead to nothing, and witch, as a matter of fact, do not make the boy do a day's physical work, it is not surprising that at the end of the day some outlet, for better or worse, has to be found.
  A great many of these young soldiers have criminal records of one sort or another, or have been on probation: they are Borstal, approved school or probation

  463
  types. I cannot believe that the method of handling these young soldiers in the Army is in line with the accepted methods used by those who have to run approved schools or by the probation service. I feel that the time has come when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State should pursue inquiries in this direction. I do not think those inquiries will be successful unless other Departments, such as the Home Office, and possibly also that of my noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor, take a hand in them, too. There it is. This matter has got worse. It is one which is causing a great deal of concern to the countryside where it happens, and I am certain that it is one which needs to be tackled as a matter of urgency.
  My third point has relation to the Army Act itself. I am delighted that this Bill has come to this House without amendment, as at one time we feared might not be the case. I feel that it is no good tackling the Army Act at all until we can tackle the whole thing as one piece. After all, events have shown that this is a most complicated matter, and it is long overdue. It ought to have been tackled immediately at the end of the war. A Department which allows an Act to get into such a bad shape is only laying up trouble for its Ministers, whoever they are. That, of course, is what happened last year, because a lot of what is in the Army Act, 1882, is quite inapplicable to what goes on at present. Then an investigation started in another place. I hope that I shall not be accused of disrespect if I compare that investigation to the hunting of the snark, because in the end I think that snark, like the original snark, turned out to be a boojum. In other words, it was found that, although the Army Act as a whole looked a quite coherent piece of work until you started to touch it, the moment you started to touch it you found that one Amendment led to another, until the time came when there was nothing to be done short of a radical overhaul. I am glad that we are not attempting any piecemeal operations this year, and I hope that, whatever the Select Committee in another place report, the Secretary of State, or the Government, will not feel themselves necessarily limited to dealing only with what the Select Committee have recommended. I believe that we
  464
  can go a great deal further. I shall be sorry to see anything left of the sections dealing with billeting and the impressing of carriages. They have proved quite unworkable in two wars, and they have been replaced by requisitioning procedure, which is now well known and has statutory authority. If we are to billet people, or if we are to impress carriages, surely, for modern war conditions we must make those powers apply to services like Civil Defence, the Fire Service, and so on.
  A further matter which I feel the time has come to tackle—and this is my last point—is this. Is it really true that we are obliged by Statute to continue the Army and Air Force only for a year at a time? I very much doubt it. I doubted it so much that I looked in the Library to see what was said in the Bill of Rights, 1689. Section 6 of that Bill says:
  "That the raising or keeping a Standing Army within the Kingdom in time of peace unless it be with consent of Parliament is against Law."
  Of course, it is. But your Lordships will notice that that Bill, which is the foundation of such things, does not mention that the Army Act has got to be passed annually. In fact, I fail to see how the fact of having an annual Act for the Army and the Air Force can be reconciled with our present obligations in time of peace to N.A.T.O. and under the Treaties concerned. I hope that when the Select Committee have reported, the investigation carried out departmentally and by the Ministers will go as wide as possible, and will not exclude the possibility of getting rid of archaic provisions of this sort, while, at the same time, preserving to the full the Parliamentary control of the Forces as laid down in the Bill of Rights. With a modern Army, and still more with a modern Air Force, I do not think it is necessary that that sort of tin can should be tied to its tail. I know that my noble friend who is to reply will not be able to give any detailed reply to the points I have made, and he knows that I do not expect him to. All I ask, therefore, is that he should take note of what I have said which in a limited way applies to the Royal Air Force, and that he will bring to the notice of the Secretary of State those things I have said which apply to the Army Act. I do not wish to delay longer the Second Reading of the Bill.
  4.10 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I intend only to ask one question of the Secretary of State, and that is: What has become of this Select Committee? We remember the debate, and we remember how the Army Act, 1882, had a great many features which we found objectionable. And the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, raised also the question of the Manual of Military Law. It was arranged at that time—I speak from recollection—that we should defer the period of determination of the Act from April 30 to July 31, in order to give us time to make the necessary alterations and bring them before Parliament. This House is not a party to that Select Committee but is, of course, vastly interested in its work, and it is disappointing to know that we have to go on for another year—we have prolonged the Act, up to now, to July 31—without having the Amendments which we hoped the Select Committee would present. Perhaps the noble Lord the Secretary of State can tell us more about that.
  As to what was said by the noble Viscount who has just spoken, I must say that the debate has taken a turn far beyond any Service aspect. Is the noble Viscount suggesting that the annual control of the Armed Forces is to be taken away?—because that, I understand, is what he says. He says that there is no need to have an Annual Bill, but that in modern conditions the Army should be perpetual. The Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, as I understand it—I am a humble student and admirer of our Constitution—is absolutely the bedrock by which we prevent an Executive from maintaining an armed force against the wishes of Parliament. If the noble Viscount is really serious about this he can put down an Amendment to the Bill, and we can have a Division upon it. But it is a matter which is certainly worth notice by the public—that it is being suggested in the Higher House of Parliament, by a noble Lord holding the distinguished record of the noble Viscount who has just spoken, that the principle of annual Parliamentary control of the Armed Forces should be abolished, and that we should hand over the force to any Government, whatever Government it might be, despite the wishes of an elected House of Parliament.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, if the noble Viscount reads Hansard tomorrow he will see that I said that while Parliamentary control, was necessary, I doubted whether the Bill of Rights, in itself, stipulated for annual control.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It would need a lawyer to interpret the Bill of Rights. To me it seems a basketful of odd Stuff. I certainly understood that the principle was that there was no discipline in the Army unless the House of Commons were prepared to discipline it from year to year. I understand that to be our protection against tyranny and dictatorship. It is not a question of money at all: it is a question of discipline. I understand that the noble Viscount proposes that that control over discipline should disappear. If so, I think he should justify his suggestion, and if certainly hope that the Secretary of State, in his reply, will give a clear Ministerial statement on the most important point that has been raised in these matters for many years.
  4.12 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, when the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, raised these matters, I am sure he was not expecting—indeed, he said he was not—an immediate answer. He certainly ranged well beyond the usual limits on debates on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. The noble Viscount's remarks on the subject of the Territorial Army deserve some mention, because it was unfortunate that, owing to the change of date of the Motion on the Array moved some months ago by my noble friend Lord Ogmore, the noble Viscount was not able to be here. The interesting thing is that his evidence on the stare of the Territorial Army is plainly in conflict with that brought forward by my noble friend Lord Ogmore, and, I think, by my noble friend Lord Wise. Evidently there is room for some doubt as to the working of the present system of National Service in the Territorial Army. We hope that the Secretary of State is making such investigations as will assure him of the true position. I imagine that he will at the same time beware of the fatal practice of taking a plant up by the roots to see how it is growing.
  On this Bill itself—and who could be more appropriate to move its Second Reading than the noble and gallant Lord,

  467
  Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, with his experience in both Services?—I think the only thing that is in the minds of all of us is that the Select Committee are sitting, and we hope that their Report, before next year, will enable us to deal with any Amendments to the Army Act that may be necessary.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, I think it would be appropriate in my reply to this short debate if I said something first about the state of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill and the position of the Government in relation to its eventual amendment in a rather radical way. Noble Lords know that the Select Committee which is sitting upon the Bill is a Committee of another place, of which we can take no official cognisance as a House of legislation. But it is common knowledge that the Committee—or, rather, Committees, because the Select Committee is reappointed each Session—have had a large number of meetings and have taken a great deal of evidence. Her Majesty's Government, in recognition of that fact, have thought it proper to present the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill in its present form, because the Select Committee of another place have stated that, in its view, it would be a mistake to anticipate its eventual findings by piecemeal amendments. I feel sure that that will strike this House, as I think it has struck another place, as a sensible arrangement.
  I think the recollection of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was accurate, and that the intention was, if possible, to produce a Report which would be considered in another place, and to have the amended Bill considered in this House this year. But, by common consent between both sides of the House in another place, the task has been more than even the most conscientious Committee could tackle within the time. I am sure that we should be the last people to accuse them of any dilatory behaviour, and I should like, not as a Member of this House but as a Minister of the Crown, to offer to that Committee my deep sense of the value of the work that they are doing. Certainly it has not been done without controversy, but it has been on a very high plane, and members of both Parties have worked in considerable harmony and to great effect. All I can
  468
  say to the noble Viscount is that we are anxious that a reform of the Bill should be presented to Parliament and that this House, not having been joined as a party to the Select Committee, shall have its full, free and unfettered right of considering and amending any legislation which is presented to it. I am not sufficiently fortified by the presence of legal luminaries to enter into the constitutional debate which has sprung up. All I can say is that we are good constitutionalists and eager as ever for the control of Parliament over the Executive. If I may say so to the noble Viscount opposite, not in the least in a hostile spirit, we on this side of the House were, for that very reason, strongly opposed to the kind of streamlined legislation which was fashionable in his Party at one time.
  The speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, largely centred on the Territorial Army and on a further topic—on the question of what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman called the "Dead-end kids" and those who had the misfortune to be convicted by the civil power. So far as the Territorial Army is concerned, I do not think we ought to give way to any undue pessimism. The Territorial Army, dependent as it is largely upon a cadre of volunteers, can never rest completely secure; that is, in the nature of things, impossible. But I do not think we need be gloomy about it. The fact is that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said, when the Territorial Army was reconstituted by the late Government in 1947 a number of Territorial officers of the inter-war years came back, and a number of new officers and non-commissioned officers joined. We praise them for their public spirit and we thank them for the work they have done; but undoubtedly, with the passage of the last five or six years, the average age of the volunteer cadre has risen and their numbers in the nature of things are bound to dwindle—as was foreseen at the time.
  That means that the National Service volunteers who, as Lord Bridgeman said, are just those who would have joined the Territorial Army as volunteers, must take over. That means, of course, because they have had shorter service, that the age level of company commanders and senior non-commissioned officers is bound to fall, and perhaps fall rather precipitately. But responsibility is always

  469
  a challenge. There are always people who will shake their heads about the younger generation and the danger of trusting them with responsibility because of inexperience. I am glad to say that in my short experience, fortified by the experience of others it is always found that these people are equal to the event; and although it is perfectly true that the Territorial Army could do with more volunteers, it does impose a greater burden and strain upon the cadre of volunteers upon whom so great a responsibility for the success of the system must rest. It is a great mistake to think that volunteers are not forthcoming. Something like 1,000 a month are coming forward, and I believe it is a great credit to the foresight of those, among whom I number Lord Bridgeman, who taught us that we should, as it were, amalgamate the voluntary spirit of the Territorial Army and harness it to the great new experiment of National Service in peace time. That does validate their faith in the Territorial Army, its vitality and its versatility.
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War is fully seized of the importance of not placing too large an administrative burden on the voluntary cadre. That that burden has increased is true; it is inevitable. It is inevitable for three reasons. First of all, the modern Army is a much more complicated structure than the Army with which we were familiar between the wars. The second reason is that we need in this post-war world a much higher state of readiness and training for both Regular and Territorial Army—and that means a greater administrative burden. Thirdly, the larger turnover of personnel, as well as the increased numbers as a result of National Service, means that documentation is much more burdensome.
  Being aware of these things as he is, my right honourable friend believes that the burden of administration must, so far as is possible, be lightened. All I can say to-day, and all that I think that the noble Viscount will expect me to say, is that he is fully aware not only of the problem but of the urgency of its solution. There is just one thing 1 should like to say concerning a point to which Lord Bridgeman referred: the age of the cadre of the Territorial Army. It was referred to in the debate on Lord Ogmore's Motion on the Army. I think
  470
  it was the noble Lord, Lord Lawson (I have not had an opportunity of telling him this, but I do not think he will resent my saying it) who made a statement about the average age. There are 9,500 Territorial officers serving to-day. Of these only 68 served as officers in the First World War and a further 460 were born in 1900 or earlier. That is not a very high proportion. It is not representative of the Territorial Army; nor does it make the average age very much higher. I say that merely to get the record correct.
  Now to turn to die last question to which the noble Viscount referred—that of National Servicemen who had had a conviction in civil life or had been in Borstal or on probation or some system of reformation, or even in prison. I fully understand his particular concern because of the numbers of depôts and other units in this county of Shropshire. But under National Service it is inevitable that the intake into the Army and, to some extent, in the Royal Air Force and to a smaller degree into the Navy consists of a cross-section of the community, and that does mean that you get a small proportion—happily a very small proportion—of men with previous criminal records. It would be, in the nature of things, impossible to segregate those men from the rest, even if it were right to do so, which it is not, because it is an essential part of the measures for the reform of these individuals that they should be given a fresh start in military life and, later, in civil life, unhampered by their previous records. With this principle of what I may call "anonymity" it is, I am afraid, inevitable that from time to time men with these records, who are likely to fail to go straight, meet each other in a military unit or camp and cause trouble. Sometimes, inevitably, I am afraid, they give leadership in the wrong direction.
  My right honourable friend is very much aware of this problem and has for some time been discussing it with the Home Secretary, who has special ministerial responsibility for matters of this kind. They are both hopeful that the interests of the Army can be protected, as they ought to be, without prejudicing the interests of the individuals concerned. I cannot say more than that, but I am sure that noble Lords will understand that it is a most difficult problem to undertake the reformation of these men in their own

  471
  interests without prejudicing the interests of the Army or of the many individuals who go into the Army with clean records. It is a pity that incidents of this kind, which naturally, and perhaps properly, attract publicity, obscure the true quality of Her Majesty's Forces, in particular, perhaps, of the Army.
  We must not forget the very heavy burden borne by the Forces since the War—an exceptionally heavy burden in our history. The fact that despite the size of the Army there is no single division in this country—which is exceptional in times of peace or semi-peace—is itself testimony of the burden which our Forces, and in particular the Army with its overseas commitments, have to bear. When we think of Malaya, of Korea, and the many other difficult and dangerous jobs carried out overseas by our forces, and very largely by the Army, in the last seven or eight years, I am sure we can see that in the long and proud record of the Services they have never given a better account of themselves as a disciplined and highly-trained force. It is the more remarkable in the case of the Army because it contains a relatively small force of Regular officers and non-commissioned officers, and they have had to form the cadre of a very large National Service Army. I think we owe it to them to say in Parliament that they have done a splendid job and made the best of the very fine material with which our system of annual call-up has provided us. I feel that, in debating the Second Reading of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, we ought to put it on record that we are cognisant of, and are grateful for, that proud record, which ought not to be obscured or tarnished by any incidents, however deplorable, which may occur from time to time.
  4.31 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I apologise for intervening at this late stage in the debate, but there are one or two things the noble and gallant Lord has just said which prompt me to say a few words. First of all, we on this side of the House are all delighted to be associated with what he has just said about the Armed Forces in the last two years. They have
  472
  done a magnificent job. I was rather interested, as the person most responsible to Parliament for the policy in 1947, to hear his general tribute to that policy, to which, very largely is owed the present state of the Armed Forces and the record they have achieved. I felt rather pleased that the noble Lord was quite frank about the situation regarding training divisions. He referred to one matter about which I was often attacked from noble Lords then on this Bench and from the Opposition Benches in another place—namely, that at the time when I was Minister of Defence we had not so much as a division in this country. But, of course, the tasks facing the present Government were there then; and one of the great reasons for the Act of 1947 was to make up our proper reserve of armed strength by including the training of regular divisions in the Territorial Army. However, I am glad to have heard this justification by the Secretary of State for Air for the policy of 1947.
  With regard to the Territorial forces, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, was right, in my view, to draw attention to the administrative burden, but I hope that if anything is to be done by the Secretary of State for War to lighten the burden, it will not be too long delayed, and that it will be possible to divide the additional help so that the burden does not fall too much upon the Regular staff of the Army itself. I hope there will be some alternative means for that, because they have a very big and heavy job to do.
  As to the other matter which the noble Lord mentioned, I do not profess to be an expert upon these ancient Statutes which have been quoted by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. I am not sure—I listened to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, when I was standing at the other end of the House—how far he went. I have taken note of what he said in his second interruption in the debate, but it is absolutely fundamental (and I hope that the Government will prove themselves to be just as good constitutionalists in this matter as the other Government to which the Secretary of State referred) if we are to maintain discipline in the Forces, not merely by Vote but through recognition of the fact that they are under the annual authority of Parliament, that the present condition of annual authority should be retained.

  473
  The only other thing I want to say is that I observe with pretty close attention in my own district, the Eastern Division of the Eastern Command (I live near Colchester), what a considerable amount of difficulty the authorities have with the soldiers who get into trouble just now. But we have to take the rough with the smooth in these matters. My experience of talking to senior officers while I was in office was that the National Service forces have proved that they can provide those who are responsible for the control, training and operation of the Forces with as fine a force as ever was available to the country before, if not finer, because of the range and cross-section of the population referred to by the Secretary of State for Air. To some extent, you have to take the rough with the smooth in such a matter as that.
  On the other hand, it would be helpful if the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for War, could produce for us at some time figures of how the percentages stand up at present—that is to say, the percentages of those who have to be treated as delinquents compared with, say, the period between the wars and the actual period during the war. If in the Annual Reports, perhaps next year, the responsible Service Ministers could give us some information on that, it might prove of some help and guidance to noble Lords in offering any contributions which they may have to make with regard to dealing with this difficult problem. I hope very much that the good report which the Secretary of State for Air has been able to give us on the discipline, morale and fine behaviour of the Forces will continue to be maintained, and that we can go on being as proud of them as I am sure we all are to-day.
  4.38 p.m.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, I should not normally ask the indulgence of the House to make a further speech, nor do I intend to make more than one comment. We have very lax rules of order and procedure in this House, but I feel that it would be for the advantage of the House, when we are to have a debate, if we could have a list of speakers from the Opposition, because it makes for a good debate if the Government are the winders-up of the debate. For that reason, I
  474
  ask the indulgence of the House to make one or two additional remarks. The last thing I want to do is to filch any credit from the late Government for anything they did in the matter of defence. Noble Lords know that in general we supported their policy because we thought it was a patriotic policy and for the good of the country. From time to time, we offered criticisms. I do not want the noble Viscount, however, to think that, because I praise the Army, the Navy or the Air Force for their conduct or their quality. I withdraw any of the criticisms of the previous Administration which we made at the time. Lord Alexander mentioned the fact that there was not a single division in this country. I can equally reply that, if that Government had taken some of our advice on foreign and military policy when they were in office, we might not now have to spread our forces so widely over the world.
  I should like to say, however, that in general our defence policy has been a national one, and it has been the better because it has been a national one. Although we will certainly listen with attention, and perhaps sometimes with impatience, to criticisms from the other side, I feel sure that they will give us that general support which we offered them at that time.
  VISCOUNT STANSGNTE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down (which is our form of words), would he say one word about a very serious matter—namely, the suggestion from a responsible quarter of his own side that we must reinterpret the Bill of Rights and so impair the annual control by Parliament of the Armed Forces?
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I thought I had mentioned it in my speech. I do not want to be drawn now into the question of the interpretation of the Bill of Rights. The noble Viscount is going to question these things, but the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has offered his comments on Section 6 of that Bill and has suggested that the constitutional authority of Parliament does not necessarily demand an Annual Bill. He did not say that it should not demand that Parliament should control the discipline of the Forces. I do not know how long there has been an Annual Bill—
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Have the Government no view about the Annual Bill?
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I am, advisedly, not going at this short notice, in a debate which is not upon the constitutional principles but upon the matters dealing with the Territorial Army, to express an opinion about a future possible general amendment of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. When the Government wish to express their view, they will express it in due time and in due form.
  On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  DOGS (PROTECTION OF LIVESTOCK) BILL
  4.40 p.m.
  Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
  Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
  SCHOOL CROSSING PATROLS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3ª (according to Order), an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  HEIGHT OF NEW CITY BUILDING
  4.42 p.m.
  LORD MOTTISTONE LORD MOTTISTONE rose to call attention to the proposal to erect a building rising to 170 feet and 380 feet long in the very centre of the City of London, and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether this great increase in height above the previously agreed maximum is not a matter of grave national concern: and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will agree when I suggest that the matter upon which I am about to speak is a national one, and that you will therefore forgive me for taking up your time. It might seem at first glance that, by asking your Lordships to consider the case of one particular building project, I am exaggerating
  476
  the importance of what should be the business of the locality concerned, for the sole, personal reason that I happen to be one of the very few residents in that locality, the City of London. Having lived, as well as worked, there for more than twenty years, it is perhaps right, however, that I should be the one among your Lordships to draw attention to this project; and I hope that I may be able to convince your Lordships that I am not making a mountain out of a molehill. In fact, the proposed Bucklers bury House, adjoining St. Stephen's, Walbrook, and the Mansion House, is the very reverse of a molehill; it is to be, as at present envisaged, a veritable mountain of steel, stone and concrete, almost exactly in the centre of the City and about 450 yards from St. Paul's Cathedral.
  If this building, great as maybe the area upon which it stands (and indeed it is very great) were to be what I may call of normal height—that is, reaching only to the height that has been agreed either by common practice or by the observance of the London Building Acts—its erection might not be thought to be a matter for the national Parliament to consider. But if it or any new building in the historic centre of the capital City is to rise in massive bulk far above all previously agreed heights, so as to alter the whole character of the neighbourhood by its domination, then, indeed, I submit that it becomes a matter of grave national concern. Let us, therefore, consider first what is the normal or agreed height to which we have been accustomed, and then compare that standard with that which is proposed. It has long been thought that height regulation of one sort or another is a necessity if the character of a city is to be preserved, and the London Building Acts have in part been framed to ensure that this limitation of height shall be observed. It was after the appalling mistake of building Queen Anne's Mansions to a height of over 150 feet (which produced a storm and outburst of indignation) that, broadly speaking, a limit of 100 feet was imposed, except in cases of specific application and approval.
  Generally speaking, this limitation was the rule until the war, after which, and owing to the resulting destruction, the City Corporation in 1947 prepared a plan for the future rebuilding of the greatly damaged City. The question of the height of new buildings came into the

  477
  review, and the distinguished consultants in their report said this:
  "We put forward the suggestion that the maximum overall height should be raised to 120 feet over a certain proportion of the ground plan of the large building sites, except in areas of special architectural control, such as the vicinity of St. Paul's Cathedral."
  This suggestion was accepted by the Court of Common Council and embodied in the City Plan. The Plan, having thus been approved, is incorporated, with modifications as regards the lay-out, in the Development Plan of the County of London which is now being discussed and considered in detail.
  At the start of the year 1951, just over two years ago, the City Corporation published a most comprehensive and excellent volume describing the City Plan in all its details. This book is profusely illustrated and is full of admirable diagrams and photographs, none of which envisages a height greater than the 120 feet suggested as a maximum in the Plan itself. Furthermore, in the section of the book dealing with the question of height, the authors (that is, the Corporation of the City) say this:
  "Although the maximum height under the London Building Acts is still proposed as the limit"—
  that is 100 feet—
  "it is suggested that parts of large buildings might be taken up to a maximum of about 120 feet in the form of towers."
  That seemed to be the final word—a very clear and definite final word on the part of the Corporation so far as anyone outside was to know.
  Now some while before the time of the publication of that book negotiations were in progress between the City Corporation and a developer with regard to the building of a new office block—the one of which we are speaking—to be known as Bucklersbury House, on a triangle formed by Queen Victoria Street and Cannon Street and with its eastern side bounded by Walbrook. I cannot go into all the details of the negotiations now—indeed I could not do so even if your Lordships would wish me to, because naturally I know very little indeed about them. I do know, however—and I am sure many of your Lordships also know—how great are the difficulties on every side that beset both a developer and the local planning authority in a question of this size, magnitude and com-
  478
  plexity. I feel the greatest possible sympathy with the developer and his architect who, I know, have been trying their hardest to produce acceptable plans.
  It would be impossible, without wearying your Lordships, to delve now into all the ramifications involved in the question of what is called "plot ratio"—that is, the ratio between the floor space to be permitted and the area of the site. Indeed it is hardly possible for a layman in these subjects to understand it without long and careful study. Suffice it to say that all these negotiations were being carried on in the normal way, naturally without coming to the notice of the general public, until at a meeting of the Court of Common Council at the end of March, 1951—that is, about the time of the publication of the book to which I have referred—permission to develop the land, on which the new Bucklersbury House is to stand was granted. In the minutes of the meet rig describing in outline the proposals for development—detailed designs had not yet been worked out—are found these ominous words:
  "The London County Council are prepared to consider permitting the building to rise to a height of from 130 to 140 feet"
  My Lords, the red light was beginning to glow. Could it be that the City Corporation was already starting to go back on its most definite and avowed intention with regard to height limitation, as set out clearly both in its consultant's report and in the passage from its own book, which I have just read and which was then hardly dry from the printing press?
  There was, of course, no definite proposal that the building would in fact rise to such heights—it merely said that such heights would be considered. However, it meant that the general public—the lovers of London—had had a warning. But I, in my ignorance, felt that when more detailed plans had been worked out—and in this connection we were glad to note that one of the conditions was consultation with the Royal Fine Art Commission—we should have time to consider the designs and their impact on London as a whole. From that day, consultation went on with the parties concerned, but no word reached the general public until copies of the summons to the meeting of the Court of Common Council were issued on May 26 of this year. In this agenda

  479
  intimation was given that the Court would be asked to approve, with the concurrence of the London County Council, drawings and perspectives of the proposed new Bucklersbury House. No mention was made of the height to which the building would rise.
  Therefore your Lordships may imagine my consternation when I heard that not only had the Corporation's own declared policy of a maximum of120 feet been exceeded, but also that the later suggestion of a maximum of 140 feet was to be outstripped by a further 30 feet. Part of the building, as now proposed, was to rise in sheer height of fourteen storeys to 162 feet, in one unbroken wall 55 feet wide and over 340 feet long—that is 10 feet longer than the facade of Buckingham Palace—with another block at right angles, 153 feet long but 20 feet lower. Upon the 162 feet high block were to be lift motor and tank rooms, which would bring the total height to 170 feet; 170 feet, which is nearly 20 feet higher than Queen Anne's Mansions, of which I have spoken, and which I believe I am right in saying led to the introduction of the London Building Acts, with the express purpose in mind of preventing such mistakes in future; 170 feet, which is exactly twice the height of the highest portion in the centre of Buckingham Palace; 170 feet which is nearly the height of the capitals of the peristyle supporting the stone gallery at the base of the dome of St. Paul's, and 60 feet higher than the cornice of the main roofs in the Cathedral.
  The summons containing the news of the submission for approval of these plans was made public, as I have said, on May 26, which was only two and a half days before the meeting of the Court on May 29. I submit that this method of procedure precludes the possibility of adequate consideration by the public as a whole of proposals fraught with such weighty consequences for the future of London. How could those who view with alarm this apparent tendency to abolish the height restrictions in the historic centre of the capital, marshal their forces or express their views in this short time? I was able to warn the noble Viscount, Lord Esher—who has expressed his great regret to me that he is unavoidably prevented from being here
  480
  to-day—and a letter from him, as President of the London Society, appeared in The Times on the morning of the day that the Court met, and I believe this may have been one of the causes of the narrowness of the majority for the adoption of the proposal.
  Your Lordships will remember that as soon as the approval by the Court was announced a Question on the subject was asked in another place of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. You will also remember how strongly the questioner was supported from both sides. We, who have this matter at heart, are most grateful to the Minister, in that, following his reply, he has interested himself greatly in the problem. I am sure I voice the thoughts of all your Lordships in wishing him a speedy recovery from his illness. I should like to comment, however, upon one of the remarks which he has made. He referred to the fact that he is not there to stop people doing things, rather implying that the objectors wished to prevent the erection of this building in whatever form. None of us wants to do that, I am sure. Certainly we all want to see the City and the rest of London rehabilitated at the earliest possible moment, but we hope to see the essential character of the Capital preserved. In this case, I earnestly hope that some reduction of height may be achieved.
  That brings me to the crux of the matter. In rebuilding are we to ignore the scale and character of this most famous and beautiful of cities, and treat it as if it had suddenly become one of the new towns? We all realise that in many circumstances there is a great deal to be said for high buildings, but is the very centre of London, with its wealth of historic and ancient buildings and all the traditions that go with them, the right place to indulge in this change of values? We have only to look at the Royal Commission's Survey Map of the City, which shows the ancient monuments in red, to see how many are the memorials of our glorious past. Your Lordships can see from where you sit the number of ancient monuments in this area. Are all these to be sunk in pits, as it were, beneath the towering walls of these new monster buildings? We realise all the difficulties and the great financial inducements to building high if sufficient

  481
  floor space is to be achieved on expensive sites, without the evils of dark and ill-ventilated courts. We all understand the advantages to be gained by what is now so fashionably considered an open type of plan. But I am perfectly certain that in this case, having regard to the locality, this idea of an open plan has been overdone, and the developers have been asked to surrender far too much of the site area. After all, according to the City Plan, this site actually adjoins the proposed large new square, which is to be no less than 500 feet long and 300 feet broad.
  Has the time not now arisen when this matter of heights in the Capital should be treated on a national basis, and when all these vexed questions of height and the problems relating thereto should be considered in a Council of the Nation? The present position is grotesque. There is a height limit fixed by Parliament under the London Building Act, 1894, covering the whole of London, but which, at the discretion of the London County Council, can be varied to such an extent that it loses all meaning. I should like to see these regulations replaced by a new code which safeguards our priceless inheritance in its appropriate setting but permits, without let or hindrance, and indeed encourages, in neighbouring but less historic localities the energy and enthusiasm of the youth of our new Elizabethan Era to greater heights, both literally and artistically, than ever before in this land. Therefore, I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider calling together such a conference at which, perhaps, some method might also be evolved of giving the public time to make their attitude felt in matters such as this and, incidentally, of arranging for the Royal Fine Art Commission to announce their disapproval of a scheme, as they have done in this case, but before, and not after, permission has been given.
  In closing, may I be allowed to quote three lines from a much loved and most beautiful sonnet:
  "Earth has not anything to show more fair.
  Dull would he be of soul who could pass by
  A sight so touching in its majesty."
  To what was the poet, Wordsworth, referring? He had the whole wide world to choose from, and he singled out the
  482
  view of London from Westminster Bridge as being as fair as anything the earth could show. He wrote that 150 years ago, and the wonderful and almost astounding fact is that it is still true to-day—changed, of course, but true—due largely to our forbears' insistence upon some form of height control. I think the truth of this is borne out by the feelings expressed by a young Australian architect whom I met last week, who is working over here for a while. Every morning his work takes him across Westminster Bridge, and he told me that every morning he pauses for a few minutes to survey the scene and marvel at the beauty of it. When I told him of this proposal and all that it foreshadows for the future, he could hardly believe that Londoners could contemplate such an enormity. I am firmly convinced that the views which this young man expressed are typical of many who, being privileged to call themselves citizens of the British Commonwealth of Nations, regard the City of London as their own. Are we to sacrifice all this beauty that we have inherited from the past? Is the dome of St. Paul's no longer to dominate the scene, and are the spires and towers of the City and Westminster no longer to grace that incomparable skyline? My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
  5.9 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on the sincerity of his remarks and on the way in which he puts his case. Whether we agree with it or not, we must recognise that he speaks with deep feeling and concern about the beauty of this City of ours. In addressing your Lordships I should like to make it clear that I speak for myself alone, and not for my Party. This is not a Party matter. I have not consulted my Party; I do not know what their views are. It would not surprise me if some of my noble friends took a different view from myself. In considering this matter I have endeavoured to see whether I could lay down certain principles upon which we might decide whether a building of this kind is desirable, or not. The first principle I would lay down, as I always did when I was in control of planning, is that prima facie the developer is entitled to develop his land as he pleases. We are entitled to prevent him only if it is; against the public

  483
  interest. That is an important consideration. We have no right to step in and stop building unless we are quite clear that it is against the public interest. The onus is definitely upon those who seek to prevent it. The noble Lord criticised the statement of Mr. Macmillan that he was not there to prevent building. I imagine that that is exactly what he meant, and with that statement I would agree.
  Secondly, I would say that it is difficult for Members of this House, without having the full details of the application before them, and all the circumstances, to form a really reliable judgment. What we do know is that both the City Corporation and the London County Council—and the noble Lord omitted to mention the London County Council in this; after all, they are the planning authority—have given full and prolonged consideration to this project. The London County Council—and I would say the same about the City Corporation—are by no means oblivious to amenity considerations. After all, it was the London County Council who were responsible for the London Building Act, 1894. I have at times crossed swords with the London County Council on amenity matters, and I know how deeply they feel about these things. In spite of that feeling, both of these authorities have approved this project.
  LORD MOTTISTONE: May I interrupt to say that, as the delegated powers of the London County Council have gone to the Corporation, I do not think the whole Council, as a Council, have sat on this project. It has been considered only by the Town Planning Committee of the London County Council. It does not appear before the general public. The whole Council has not considered it.
  LORD SILKIN: No. The whole Council never do consider planning applications. But the Planning Committee of the Council speak in the name of the London County Council. I am sure that if the Planning Committee had rejected this scheme the noble Lord would not have complained that it was not the London County Council, as a Council.
  The third point—and I regard this as a most important consideration in weighing up this matter—is that we are all anxious that the City of London should
  484
  be rebuilt as quickly as possible. After all, the City of London is the heart of the British Commonwealth. I need not in this House enlarge upon the vital importance to the welfare of the Commonwealth, from the economic, the social, and every point of view, of rebuilding the City of London. Everybody who comes to London goes to see the Mansion House, the Guildhall and all those old glorious buildings, and we do want to see the City restored as soon as possible.
  Those are three fundamental considerations that we must have before us in weighing up any application for rebuilding. Unless we are absolutely satisfied beyond all doubt that this project ought not to go forward in its present form—and in a case of this kind the onus is placed more strongly than ever upon those who object—then I submit that we ought not to intervene. Having listened carefully to the noble Lord, I gather that his real objection to this project, and I imagine his only objection, is that it is too high. He referred to the bulk and the length of the building—that it was longer than the facade of Buckingham Palace—but I do not think he enlarged on that, and he did not explain why Buckingham Palace should be the building with the longest facade in this country, and why no other building should exceed it in length. I take it that those of us who want to see this project, or something like it, go forward have to address ourselves only to the question of height. That I propose to do.
  What is the objection? The noble Lord stressed the fact that at two or three points it was 170 feet high; and he rather tried to make our flesh creep, by emphasising the height, by telling us this same fact in so many different horrific ways, comparing it with other heights, and so on. But let us be realistic and frank with ourselves. What really is the objection to a building 170 feet high? Is it because it is higher than the normal height laid down in the London Building Act? I must confess that that does not impress me very much. The London Building Act, 1894, was more or less a panic measure. It was passed, as the noble Lord himself said, because of the erection of Queen Anne's Mansions. Up to that time there had apparently been no real restriction on the height of buildings, and many people were horrified at the erection of Queen Anne's Mansions.

  485
  No doubt they were right, because anyone who knows that area realises that Queen Anne's Mansions deprive the surrounding area of light and air. The building is dark in itself and darkens the whole of the surrounding district. It is objectionable because of its height. Nobody is arguing that, in all circumstances and in all places, we should go to the kind of height of this building. It is no use for the noble Lord to tell us that 170 feet is an objectionable height in itself. If he does object to it, he must go further and prove to us that a building 170 feet high is wrong in Bucklersbury, and wrong in relation to the particular plans of this building.
  LORD BLACKFORD: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question. It is not only this one building. Suppose that this building is the forerunner of many others of equal, or even greater, height, will not the effect of that be to hide, minimise and dwarf all the spires of Wren, which are the great beauty of the skyline of the City of London, particularly as seen from such an aspect as Black friars Bridge or London Bridge?
  LORD SILKIN: I see the noble Lord's point. Of course, it is the function of the Town Planning Committees, both of the City Corporation and of the London County Council, to consider each scheme on its merits. This scheme is not necessarily the forerunner of anything else. This in no sense binds anybody at all. It is the duty of the Planning Committees of the Corporation and the London County Council to consider this particular problem, and no other. Since the noble Lord has made this point—and it is a perfectly legitimate point—let me say this. The London Building Act does not limit the height of buildings at all. It lays down what is the normal maximum height, but makes provision for greater heights than 100 feet. But in those cases it also lays down that any owner of land within one hundred yards of the proposed building who regards himself as being detrimentally affected by this building—through being deprived of light and air, say, or even of a view—can appeal against the decision to permit this building. He has a right of appeal, and his objections will be considered. In every single case the surrounding owner has that right if the building exceeds 100 feet. Therefore, the
  486
  public are really protected against a recurrence of heights all over the City of London.
  But supposing the noble Lord is right, is there any particular magic about 100 feet? We are living in very different days from the days when Wordsworth wrote his poem, and the view from Westminster Bridge, as the noble Lord quite rightly said, has changed considerably since those days. I would say that it has changed for the better, and there are many new sights from Westminster Bridge as a result of changes to which many people, including, I imagine, the noble Lord himself, strongly objected at the time. I should be surprised to hear that the noble Lord did not object to the pulling down of the old Waterloo Bridge and the erection of a new bridge; and yet to-day, by general agreement, Waterloo Bridge is one of the beautiful sights to be seen from Westminster Bridge. I do not think you can see another building from Westminster Bridge beyond the Bank side Power Station. But many of those who protested about it at the time have since seen it and no longer object. So what is the magic about this 100 feet?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): What is the height of the Shell Building?
  LORD SILKIN: I think it is more than 100 feet, but less than the height of this proposed building. Of course, in 1894 100 feet was considered in relation to the method of building in those days. It bore some relationship to safety considerations. The days of reinforced concrete, and so on, were not exactly unknown, but they were untried; and the authorities were concerned with fire precautions and considerations of that sort. These were factors which led to the limit, under the London Building Act, of, normally, 100 feet.
  We are living in very different days to-day. We have to reconstruct the City of London. The noble Lord agrees with that, and I hope no one will consider that the function of the present day is to replace the City of London exactly as it was before, with all the in sanitary buildings, and buildings with inadequate light and air. The noble Lord lives in the City of London and, therefore, knows all

  487
  about it. I have worked in the City of London for the greater part of my working life, and I know that the majority of old buildings in the City are not healthy places in which to work. In the olden days a great many people had to work under constant artificial light and with inadequate air space. I hope that when we come to rebuild the City of London we shall provide adequate light and air for everybody, and a certain amount of open space. That is essential, if not on health grounds at any rate on the grounds of securing maximum efficiency, because you do not get efficiency from people working by artificial light all day long.
  If, however, we are going to get in the City of London roughly the same amount of accommodation as we had before—and we need it—there is no case for decanting the City of London to other parts of the Metropolis. There has been a trend, which I think has already gone too far, towards moving the City to the West End of London. I do not think that trend can go much further, because the West End of London is now fairly congested. If we are to get into the City of London even that amount of accommodation which is essential for the special purposes of the City of London—insurance buildings and banking; then there is the Aldermanbury district, the textile industry and that kind of accommodation—and if we are to provide healthy conditions of work for the people in the City of London, we can only build upwards. We cannot remain at the existing heights and yet provide the necessary open space, light and air, and so on that we need. Therefore, it seems to me inevitable that the modern trend on every ground must be to go higher. It is a pity that we cannot expand the City of London, but whatever happens, the magic square mile remains; and if we are to get what we want in that square mile, and to get the necessary volume of accommodation, it can be done only by going higher than it has been the practice hitherto to go.
  I would say one other thing about the building itself before I come to its effect on the general appearance of the City of London and its effect on St. Paul's. We are dependent upon people coming forward and risking their capital in the reconstruction of the City of London.
  488
  Unless we can give people a scheme which is efficient and economical, and which will give them a reasonable return for their money, we shall not get buildings put up at all. Nobody is going to put up buildings at a loss. It is notorious that the cost of land in the City of London is extremely high, and that sites, for that reason, have to be used in the most efficient way. I am not sympathetic to landowners who ask too much for their land, but I imagine that the promoters of this scheme are not paying more than the normal market price for the land, and they have to see a reasonable return on their money. If I understand the noble Lord correctly, he would answer that he is not quarrelling with the cubic content of this building: he says that it is possible to get the same cubic content by spreading the building out. I am assured, however, that that is not the case; that if we are to get the standard conditions of light and air that are necessary, it is inevitable that the building must go upwards. I fear that the alternative to approving this scheme is to leave the site derelict; and that nobody would want.
  Now a word about the dominance of this building and its effect on St. Paul's and other important buildings. The noble Lord has been good enough to give us the opportunity of seeing this for ourselves on a small scale—and, of course, no amount of talk in this Chamber can be a substitute for seeing a model. I have had the opportunity of seeing it, and I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord for letting us have the opportunity. I invite any noble Lord to go and look at it—it is in the Royal Gallery—and I defy anybody to say that this building is going to dominate St. Paul's. I feel personally that St. Paul's dominates the whole scene and, indeed, in perspective, it is most difficult to pick out this particular high building. It does not look as if it stands much higher than most other buildings; but, of course, measurements cannot be wrong, and it is higher. But as to dominating St. Paul's, that idea seems to me to be utterly misconceived: it does not do anything of the kind.
  LORD MOTTISTONE: I did not say it is going to dominate St. Paul's—I admit it is not as big as all that, and I am very glad it is not—but it is a dominating building.
  LORD SILKEN: Of course, it is: it is I very large building. But I do not understand the relevance of its relationship with St. Paul's. I thought the noble Lord's case was that it was higher than St. Paul's. At any rate, I thought he was giving the impression that it was rivalling St. Paul's. That used to be said of the Bank side Power Station. If the noble Lord does not say that, I do not understand what his case is as regards dominance. Looking at this model, it strikes me that it is very much like any other building. It is a little higher, though it does not even look its full height; certainly it does not dominate St. Paul's or rival it or the other important buildings in the area.
  There is one other point, though I do not think I need labour this question. We have to take into account that we are living in a different age, and that if we want both the best possible conditions for those who are going to spend a great part of their lives in the City of London, and also if we want to provide the volume of accommodation that is necessary for preserving the importance of the City and enabling it to discharge its proper functions, the only way is to go upwards. Therefore, while I feel that this discussion may have served a useful purpose and that it is a good thing to ventilate these matters, I hope we shall all of us look forward and not look backward. I hope that we in these islands are capable of as great architectural achievements in the future as we have been in the past. This is a new age with great and splendid opportunities. All artists have had to contend with those who were the exponents of standing still or of going back. Noble Lords may remember that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony was howled down when it was first produced; to-day it is recognised as a masterpiece. I have referred to Waterloo Bridge. Possibly in the days to come Bucklersbury House will be pointed to as one of the great achievements of the present age. At any rate, I feel that we ought not to stand in the way of opportunity being presented to modern architects to see what they can do, and not be governed entirely by what has happened in the past.
  LORD HAWKE: I am on the noble Lord's side but I should like to ask him a question. I wonder whether he can
  490
  enlighten the House as to the possible necessity for altering the entire fire fighting arrangements of London because of one inordinately high building. Can he say anything abort that?
  LORD SILKIN: Not without asking for the indulgence of the House for a much longer period. But I do not think that the height of this building is in any way influenced by fire fighting considerations. I think that factor can be met to-day, whatever the height of the building is, and I do not consider that the height of this building is influenced in any way by that consideration.
  5.31 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, before I begin the speech I have prepared, I should like to say one or two words to the noble Lord who has moved this Motion. He seemed to doubt whether the London County Council and the City Corporation were in favour of this project. I can tell him definitely that the London County Council is unanimously in favour of it and that the City Corporation is in favour of it by a substantial majority. I believe I am stating exactly the facts of the case. Now, with regard to these towering walls the noble Lord referred to, if he were to stand on the Victoria Embankment at the foot of Somerset House, I wonder what he would imagine the height to the top of Somerset House to be. I should say it is probably a good deal over 140 feet—I am, of course, speaking from a casual look at it. The noble Lord also spoke of the London Building Act. Well, my Lords, we know that that Act is quite obsolete now. It has been abused many times. After all, there is Faraday House, which is 140 feet high and only 235 yards from St. Paul's.
  I think I may be able to give some information which I hope will convince your Lordships that the Bucklersbury House project is not unreasonable. I was privileged to attend a joint meeting of the London County Council, the City Corporation, and the developer concerned in this building, under the chairmanship of one of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government planning officers. Amongst the City Corporation's representatives there was a speaker in opposition to these plans. I believe he is a partner of the noble Lord who moved this Motion. He spoke strongly against the project though he did not go into the detail which the

  491
  noble Lord did just now. His opposition to it was principally on the question of height. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that we should not tie ourselves down to any particular height. Anyway, let us consider this project in regard to the height. I propose to deal with it from that point of view. I am afraid your Lordships will have to bear with me a little longer than usual. I generally speak for a very short time in this House, but I have to cover a good deal of ground, and I feel that this is a very important debate on the development of the City of London.
  Now the maximum height above ground of this project is stated to be 168 feet. This includes the height of the lift towers which house the lift machinery. Ignoring these projections, the average height of the building proper would be 153 feet. Let us take the utmost height of 168 feet. We find that the fall in the land from St. Paul's to this building is 20 feet; therefore this height, in strict comparison with that of St. Paul's Cathedral, is 148 feet only. The plans already approved for the Bank of England buildings—the plans are going to be issued—give a height of 140 feet. These buildings, when erected, will be adjacent to St. Paul's Cathedral, whilst Bucklersbury House, as the noble Lord has already told us, is 450 yards from St. Paul's Cathedral. Is the difference of 8 feet, therefore, the cause of all this trouble? I will show your Lordships shortly what a trouble it has been to arrive at agreement on this subject. If it is only a question of a difference of 8 feet between what is going to be done close against St. Paul's and what is going to be done 450 yards from it, then I think, with the greatest respect, that the criticism is somewhat frivolous and indeed vexatious.
  It was agreed that the bulk granted on this section, as compared with what existed before, should be as follows—it is always a bore to give figures, but, to demonstrate what I mean, I will give your Lordships the situation over this site as it was in 1939. The gross floor area in 1939 was 461,250 square feet. The gross floor area of the suggested new building is 467,700 square feet. In the 1939 building there were 6,202,648 cubic feet and in the proposed new building there will be 6,523,378 cubic feet. The cube of the 1939 buildings has been agreed with the
  492
  district valuer, and the gross floor area of these buildings has been agreed with the City Corporation, so I do not think there is any doubt that those figures are accurate.
  It will be seen that, although the actual gross floor area is increased by 6,450 square feet, the difference after allowing for the extra space set aside in the new building for corridors, walls, lifts, lavatories, et cetera, is very small in favour of the new buildings; whereas on the cubic feet measurement of the old buildings, plus the 10 per cent, permitted increase by law, there is less cubic feet capacity in the new building than the developer could have claimed. The opposition went on to say—I am quoting from what took place at the meeting with the Ministry—that they thought that, if the plans were again sent back for revision, the height could be lessened by a greater spreading of the whole building over the site. At present it occupies only 65 per cent.—that is, 85,000 square feet. The balance, no less than 44,000 square feet, or just over one acre, has been absorbed in road widening and open spaces. If the open spaces are lessened to reduce height, we shall be faced with a request to reduce the angles of light and thus the amenities will be affected—which is the very point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
  Four years, at a cost in architects' fees of £31,000, has been spent in trying to get a compromise to suit all parties concerned in this area. Even if these plans are sent back again, is it likely that any other scheme, evolved at the expense of amenities or angle of light, will not arouse opposition from another section, equally as ill-informed, shall I say—perhaps I am putting it rather strongly—as the present objectors? Surely it is impossible to please everybody all the time. After all, the argument simply means that for the sake of, say, 30 feet, reducing the height to 118 feet, net, above ground level as compared with St. Paul's Cathedral 450 yards away, the company will have to lose a capital value of well over £500,000. It would, therefore, completely upset their financial plans and make the proposed building uneconomic, unless rents can be raised by 5s. to 7s. 6d. per foot. Such an increase, I venture to say, is almost impossible to achieve.

  493
  It is suggested that this building will set a standard for all the City. That is demonstrably incorrect. It is an island site, a very rare type of site in that area, and the height granted can be repeated only for buildings on similar areas in the City. Where are these areas? I know of none. Even if an area of a similar size were available, it is certainly outside the bounds set down for special treatment as to plot ratio by the planners. Consequently, this problem of bulk does not arise, and hence height considerations are of much less importance. Bearing in mind that this area is one that calls for concentration of business activity—a matter that brooks no criticism as to its need—the two necessary authorities have given their judgment. On this judgment, all plans have been based, both as to need and to economy. As Mr. Edmund Howard wrote in his letter to The Times, it is for the architects to solve the problem on these facts and not to ignore them.
  With your Lordships' permission, I should like to read what Mr. Edmund Howard, who is no less a person than the President of the Associated Owners of City Properties, gives as his opinion with regard to this matter. I am quoting from his letter in The Times of Thursday, July 2. This is what he says:
  "This style is entirely opposed to traditional form of architecture adopted in the City for the purpose of dealing with, first, its needs; secondly, its economic aspects"—
  He is referring here to the United Nations Building in New York, which had been referred to by some of the critics of this scheme. He continued:
  "bearing in mind the first two points, the merging of these into an harmonious architectural plan that does not clash with existing new or comparatively new buildings in the vicinity. What we require in the City are buildings of such a bulk as will house tenants in close proximity to their respective markets."
  Any one of us who has ever been in the City—whether in the Stock Exchange or in a bank, or in any sort of big firm—knows the absolute necessity of having one's office near one's main place of business. Then Mr. Edmund Howard goes on to say:
  "It is useless to contemplate a style of architecture that at the same time enforces on the City greater financial difficulties than ever before in carrying out its functions as a world financial centre.…The London County Council and the Corporation of London must
  494
  be permitted to pass plans without reference to the Royal Fine Art Commission or any other body."
  I entirely agree with that statement made by one of the highest authorities in regard to City property.
  My Lords, I come back to the tenor of my speech. If, as they say, the authorities cannot produce a building to meet conditions that satisfy their aim of emulating contemporary art, then contemporary art goes to the ground; for the City cannot live on the principle that they must subscribe to art as against their need to produce dollars. Here let me remind your Lordships that this area of the City earns more dollars than any industry in the whole country. Surely it is time to consider the way in which this matter of such importance has been treated. Driven from pillar to post, thwarted by regulation after regulation, restrained by the Treasury on various national financial grounds—that is the position which has faced the City. For over four years this interminable struggle has gone on. I do not say that some of the restrictions were not necessary, owing to our financial position; but that is the situation. What an example to future developers of the City, as Lord Silkin has said, so urgently needing new office accommodation! Yet they were promised every help by the City Council in regard to priority as to building licences, in so far as it lay in their power to induce them. It was further added that by their efforts they saved the City Corporation the need to find the money necessary for the sites to be purchased, as it was a declaratory area, and the cost of the building, a matter in all of between £7 million and £8 million, if the City were forced, as they could be, to take over the sites. This was freely spoken of at the recent meeting with the Ministry, where one of their representatives stated that they were in the dilemma of having to find, under the present planning scheme adopted, between £40 million and £50 million on other schemes.
  It must be remembered that when the Capital Issues Committee approved the first steps in this company's financial programme, they would surely have done that only under approval from the Treasury and the Ministries involved in the project. Whilst it is true that capital issues permission does not mean that licences are immediately forthcoming, does it

  495
  mean that we have got to have four years' delay? How can any developer move in these circumstances? Since the project was first mooted, building costs have gone up 25 per cent.—a further hardship inflicted on the developer. One very irritating phrase arising over the building licence relates to what is termed "the position in the queue" at the Ministry of Works for the necessary licence to build. How can this be operated when, to commence, the company must negotiate to purchase all the sites, and did so, in the belief that this condition was non-existent? I think I am right in saying that these sites cost somewhere between £1 million and £1,100,000. The time has come when this work has to proceed. May I say, therefore, that to alter these plans at this stage amounts, in my view, simply to bowing to criticism such as has already been fully dealt with in the departments of the authorities concerned? Further, may I ask what is the use of vesting the power in these authorities, who are in full agreement with the present plans, if they are to be overriden?
  I am intervening in opposition to the noble Lord's Motion because, like him and many others in your Lordships' House, I have had many years' experience in City of London offices. It is only latterly that offices which were, and still are, in a sense (I am not putting it too highly) literally slums, have begun to be improved, giving a new outlook to City workers, who now come to their work to fine buildings, giving light and air and every modern amenity, enabling them to carry out their jobs efficiently and speedily. And, of course, it means everything to the firms who employ them to get the work economically carried out. Environment means much to the workers—not only to their minds but to their happiness and contentment. I am anxious, as I know your Lordships are, that our blitzed City shall be rebuilt in a manner worthy of its great name. Every encouragement should be given to those developers who have enterprise and imagination to do so.
  What is the present position? All the authorities concerned approve the plans. The banks, both British and American, insurance companies, and great corporations want the accommodation—in fact, the place is let before one stone is put
  496
  on another. I have seen letters from an American bank asking at what date they can take over their new office. So they really believe that this is going to happen. I am sure that it is bound to happen in the end, whether there is a slight alteration or not, as it is absolutely essential to the welfare of the City. Some offices of these great firms, and indeed the banks, are spread all over London, which is bound to be unsatisfactory and uneconomic. This situation must be rectified at once; the need is vital. Facilities must be given, at a reasonable cost, to re-establish our great businesses in the City—I do not mean in London as a whole, but the City of London. I have already referred to dollar-earning capacity. Why should not the City worker have the amenities of an up-to-date factory? This question has far too long been ignored. I do not know whether the noble Lord intends to divide the House—I do not think he does. But I hope noble Lords, and particularly those in Opposition, will take the view that Lord Silkin does, and support me in opposing the Motion, which undoubtedly is detrimental to the health and happiness of our City workers, and also to the efficient management of our great business firms. All I am asking for at the present moment is a licence for £100,000 to test the natural foundations of the site. This will take roughly nine months, and an assurance must be given that a further licence will be forthcoming to start the building itself on completion of this testing.
  I hope that what I have said has somewhat shaken the views of the noble Lord who has moved this Motion. This is probably the most momentous debate that has taken place in regard to the future of the rebuilding of our great City of London. Finally, I would just like to say this. I understand that the developers have constantly said that they hold no particular brief for this particular plan. In fact, they consider that their own earlier efforts were better; but their original plan was not acceptable either to the City Corporation or to the London County Council. I take a very strong view about this matter, and I hope that what I have said, and the information which I have given, will greatly influence those in power to enable this project to go forward.
  6.0 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, not only has the Motion before your Lordships' House been useful in eliciting the information given by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, but there is one aspect—perhaps a by-product of the Motion—which is, I think, equally, if not more, important. The plans and the model of the building in Bucklersbury which are shown in the Royal Gallery have produced on me an effect which is not perhaps what Lord Mottistone would have wished, but which I think is even more important. The peccant building shown in the model is not the proposed structure in Bucklersbury but that on the so-called Bank of England site in the neighbourhood of St. Paul's I sincerely hope that one of the outcomes of this debate will be that that plan will not be proceeded with in the form shown on the model exhibited. In common with other people, I think that the plan will mask St. Paul's from the eastern end. On the other hand, I hope that the plan for the Bucklersbury site will be proceeded with as soon as possible.
  I am not clear, from the terms of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone's Motion, what is the particular trouble in his mind. He spoke about the height of the building, and re-emphasised time and time again the height of 170 feet. Now the height of a building, by itself, is not, as it seems to me, the essential point of his argument at all. It is the height in relation to the bulk of the building, and the number of buildings of that height in a given area, that affect the skyline and the whole conception of the plan. Lord Mottistone said he hoped that if the building were proceeded with it would not form a precedent in height for other buildings in the devastated areas of the City. On the contrary, I feel that it should be a precedent. Development of that vast devastated area between St. Paul's and the centre of the City was decided in principle, so far as I know, a long time ago, and it was to take the form of a spread-out disseminated plan of large blocks, with open areas around them. But to have one building only of 170 feet and to fill up the rest of the area, or large parts of the rest of the devastated area, with low buildings of 100 or 120 feet would result in drawing attention to the height of one building and would alter the conception, the skyline and the view of the City far more than if—as I hope
  498
  will be done—a number of buildings of approximately the same height are placed in the devastated areas. In other words, I should like to see an entirely different conception from that which the noble Lord seems to have in mind about how the site ought to look after the devastated areas have been rebuilt. I should like to see large island blocks of buildings, with open spaces around them, and with the gardens and the amenities to which Lord Teviot has referred, which have been lacking in the City, not for generations but for centuries.
  If I may enlarge upon one small point in what Lord Teviot has said, I would just say this. The City of London, as a contributor to our invisible exports, accounts, probably, for 100 per cent. of the invisible exports in banking and insurance; for a very large proportion (it is difficult to say how much exactly) of the commodity trade of this country, and for probably about 80 per cent. of the invisible revenues from the shipping industry. Yet that contribution to our balance of trade has been made from an acreage, from an aggregate mass of buildings, that no one would allow as a factory or allow a; an area in which a manufactured export was produced in this country. It is inconceivable that such conditions would be allowed to go on in factories without a public outcry. Yet in the City this major contribution—very much larger, as has been said, than has been made by any manufacturing industry—has been permitted for seven years since the war from buildings standing in about two-thirds of the area formerly occupied and containing—with the exception of two or three; one in Walbrook, and another in the Mincing Lane area—nonew buildings. The language which Lord Teviot used is moderate compared with what would be needed for many of us who work in the City to express our feelings on that subject.
  If this beginning is to be made, as I hope it will be, I trust that it will be the beginning of the construction of large blocks of buildings; all over the area, so that not only can the existing population, the working population, of the City be rehoused, but provision can also be made for the additional people who have to work there and who are now uneconomically disseminated all over London—again under conditions which

  499
  leave a great deal to be desired. Therefore, the argument in Lord Mottistone's Motion about the height of the building is, I consider, misplaced. What I had hoped he would have touched on was the height of the building in relation to its mass. It is arguable—I do not know whether Lord Mottistone would agree or not—that it might have been better to have a building rising to a central element init of 200 feet in height and have had a smaller mass at the 150 feet or 160 feet level. That, however, is arguable. It is a matter of taste and, to some extent, of economics. I should prefer to see a higher building than 170 feet with rather less mass at that height.
  LORD MOTTISTONE: May I interrupt to say that I did stress the length of the building and its width? My point was that the height alone is not the real trouble, so much as the vast bulk. I said that it was 340 feet long. That was my point, and to that extent I agree with the noble Lord.
  LORD RENNELL: I am glad that the noble Lord has explained that, because his reiteration of "170 feet" left the impression on my mind—and I think on the minds of others of your Lordships also—that it was the height he was worrying about, more than the height in relation to the mass. There is a method of correcting that which is to go higher and reduce the mass. But that would perhaps take us into a discussion of the architectural merits of various schemes.
  On the question of height, I should like to say as strongly as I can that we need an entirely new conception of what buildings in London are going to be. I do not feel that it is the height of the buildings in Queen Anne's Mansions that has shocked people; it is the shape of Queen Anne's Mansions and the relation of that building to buildings around it. Lord Mottistone surely would not want, as an alternative, to have the City built tight, without open spaces, at an average level of 100 feet, or on the lower level at which it stood before it was destroyed by the enemy. If that is not his view—and I do not think it can be—and he is in favour of open spaces around buildings, then we have no alternative but to go up.
  The other point about which the noble Lord felt strongly is that a building of
  500
  this size dwarfs other buildings. In regard to this point, Bucklersbury House is not the peccant building; it is the new Bank of England building. But let us see what Bucklersbury House is supposed to dwarf in its immediate neighbourhood. St Stephen's, Walbrook, is a very small church: it is already dwarfed, and has been for many years, by new buildings. St. Mary-le-Bow is sufficiently tall, even if immediately surrounded by tall buildings, not to run the risk of being dwarfed. There are different views about the architectural merit of the Mansion House, but the existence of a large building and a small building near it does not necessarily mean that a small building is dwarfed or vanishes from sight or, indeed, ceases to be a remarkable monument.
  I think the greatest contrast in height in the world is the Church of the Trinity in Wall Street and the immense buildings which surround it. In my view, these buildings have added a great deal of dignity to a building which otherwise has little artistic merit. It has become much more than it would have been if skyscrapers had not been built around it. It is not necessarily the case that a large building draws attention away from the small, beautiful, old building near it—rather the reverse. A large modern building, such as that conceived at Bucklersbury, is so large that the eye is unlikely to take it all in from one point, and the eye will remain on the buildings surrounding it, like the Mansion House. I think the Mansion House will be emphasised by large buildings rather than by an open space. Therefore, far from wishing that this Motion will receive the approval of your Lordships, I hope that the Bucklersbury building, on which so many years of work and negotiation have been spent, will be a precedent for other buildings of that sort, size, height and conception in the devastated areas of the City of London.
  6.14 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, all noble Lords who have spoken so far seem to me to have misunderstood the plea that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, made in his speech. They accused him of wanting to stop the rebuilding of the City, and to stop building over a certain height, whereas, as I undertsand it—though, of course, the noble Lord will speak for himself when he comes to reply—his complaint was not against the building itself, but

  501
  against building it on the proposed site. That brings up the question of town planning—and here a layman has to walk warily, because nowadays no subject seems so full of jargon which may be misused—and of legislation. I understand that there is provision for what is called areas of "special architectural control," areas in which the planning authorities have the duty to preserve the amenities of whatever is the principal feature of the area.
  It seems to me that the ground for concern about Bucklersbury House is that from anywhere west of Waterloo Bridge it will, on the skyline, appear close to St. Paul's, and compete with St. Paul's on the skyline to such an extent that it will spoil the silhouette as we know it and as Wren planned it. On that ground it ought not to be allowed in that area. From that, it follows that this plan should have been brought to the notice of the public at some earlier stage. I would strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in his plea for earlier opportunities for public discussion of these plans. It has happened again and again in my experience, in a society like the London Society, that plans are suddenly heard of at a stage when it is too late to stop them without causing great loss to the people undertaking the development. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will be able to tell us something about that from the planning aspect.
  It is all very well to give the planning authorities full discretion but, as servants of the public—after all, they are not the masters—we expect them to give the public a chance of expressing its opinion on anything which is likely to be controversial. I know there is a danger of those bodies who devote themselves to the preservation of the amenities and the beauties of our cities and countryside being prone to take a narrow view, to urge preservation for preservation's sake and to resist anything new. Obviously, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, has said, that is an impossible standpoint. Every generation has to build for its own needs and build in its own style. All we can do, space being limited, is to ensure that the really valuable features left us from the past are not obscured from view by new buildings. That is why I think there is a case against this building, on the ground of its proximity to St. Paul's.
  502
  I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, quote, from a letter in The Times, but he omitted a sentence in that letter which seemed to me to give a clue to another danger in matters such as this. The letter is a frank expression, I would say an almost shameless expression, of the purely business view that the only thing that matters is to make a profit, and the results to the rest of the community do not matter. The missing sentence in the letter from the Associated Owners of City Properties is this:
  "Developers of City properties object to the Royal Fine Art Commission being brought in to approve or disapprove modern buildings in the City."
  It is as bald as that. Surely, that is the authentic voice of the Victorians, who wrecked many cities and much of our countryside; people who do not acknowledge that there are any values but those of business profit and loss. I am sorry to see that the City property owners have committed themselves to such a view, and I can hardly believe that they all feel that way.
  There is one last question on town planning which I should like to ask the noble Lord; it was, in fact, asked in a letter to The Times from Mr. Gordon Stephenson. We hear that it is absolutely essential that the City, when rebuilt, should house more people than before—I believe 10 per cent. is the figure allowed for. I might add that the City seems to have been conducting its business of earning invisible revenue quite successfully over the last ten years, in spite of half the City being devastated. I wonder whether the argument that the only possible place for business headquarters is within the boundaries of the City has so much validity as we are told. If we are going to maintain the number of people working in the City, or even increase it, is not that going completely contrary to the whole tendency and the whole aim of present-day town planning in London? Have not all the London plans had as their object decentralisation and the reduction of congestion? If you increase the number of people working in the City, you encourage the sprawling of suburbs out from London. The County of London and the Greater London Plans, new towns, and all the rest of it, are the means we have adopted to prevent that very thing.

  503
  Mr. Stephenson says in his letter:
  "'Does it make sense to go on increasing the amount of office accommodation in central London, including the City, when the main thesis of the plans is decentralisation and the reduction of congestion?"
  This small area of high ground deserves special treatment to prevent St. Paul's, the largest and finest single feature of London, suffering from competition from other huge blocks of buildings. There is a good deal of room to the north and north-east of St. Paul's where there is devastated land waiting to be built on. Why cannot the developers who want these huge buildings be given their licences for land in areas other than that small area of the City? I should like to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, with the qualification that I do not go all the way with him on the question of the general raising of building heights.
  6.25 p.m.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Mottistone drew my attention in private to this forthcoming debate, and told me about the proposed erection of this large building, I must say that I was struck by his æsthetic arguments, and those of his partner who made a most eloquent speech before the Common Council of the City on this subject. Therefore, I looked forward eagerly to seeing the plans and models which are now to be seen in the Royal Gallery. I am bound to admit that the more I looked upon those models the less enthusiastic was my support for my noble friend's æsthetic objections to them. It seems to me that this building will not be of the all-dominant character which I conceived it would be. It will have no effect whatever on St. Paul's, of course; but it will dominate the immediate area around it—the Mansion House and St. Stephen's, Walbrook.
  I was struck by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Rennell on this aspect when he said that a smaller building may even gain from the propinquity of some overpowering eminence by the actual fact of its smallness. Therefore, I would not argue on the architectural merits of this scheme. One must remember that the City Corporation are advised by two eminent architects, Professors Holden
  504
  and Holford, and the London County Council have Professor Abercrombie. Surely, each case will be judged on its merits. In this case they have allowed 170 feet. I hope—and that is why I interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, when he was speaking—that no particular height will be considered universal. I deprecate the idea that Wren's skyline should be entirely obstructed by high buildings, and I think we must leave it to the expert advisers of those two bodies to treat each case on its merits. We may be sure that they have just as great a desire for the future beauty of the modernised City of London as has my noble friend Lord Mottistone or anybody else.
  The reason why I have ventured to intervene for a few moments in this debate is that during the thirty-three years or so that I have been intimately connected with the City of London I have sat on a large number of committees, of one kind and another, connected with the beautification of the City, making open spaces in the City, Tower Hill improvement, and what not. The last one on which I sat was presided over by Mr. Holland Martin, a director of the Bank of England and consisted of about six members, each representing some phase of City life. I represented the banks and insurance companies; somebody else represented the City Guilds; somebody else represented the Churches, and so on. Our object was to keep an eye on the replanning of the City of London after its devastation; to do what we could to represent our various interests in connection with that replanning, and, above all, to hurry up the replanning. We signally failed to achieve anything in that respect. We started to sit in about the year 1945, I think it was; we met about once a quarter—and very boring the meetings were because they produced so little result. Eventually, on the Motion of our chairman, Mr. Holland Martin, about the year 1952 we considered that it was an utter waste of time for us ever to sit again, because we could get nothing whatever done. Since that time the committee has been in abeyance.
  Therefore, when I see a plan coming forward to get something done, I lean very much towards it, and it is a satisfaction to me to notice that in the past year or so several big buildings, such as

  505
  St. Swithin's House and Plantation House, have been completed. Here we have a new project coming forward, in the shape of Bucklersbury House, a very clumsy name which I hope the promoters will eventually modify to Walbrook House, a name that is equally historic and is more easily handled. But here is a big project coming forward to get something done, and on the whole I think it is being done reasonably well, having due regard to the amenities which are so desirable in the future, such as open air, light, space and so on. Therefore, I hope that the project will go forward without further delay. If the promoters, having listened to this debate, having noted the anxiety which your Lordships as a whole feel, that the general height of the City shall not be uniformly so overpowering as to wreck Wren's skyline, should therefore feel inclined to modify their plans at all, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, adumbrated they might be inclined to do, that would be all to the good. I hope that the project will go forward, and, therefore, I cannot support Lord Mottistone's Motion which is in the contrary sense.
  Before sitting down, and in view of the emphasis which has been laid by so many of your Lordships on the necessity for more open spaces in the City of London, I should like to go completely out of order—to which your Lordships are always so sympathetic—and point out that at Bunhill Fields there are no fewer than six acres of utterly useless gravestones cluttering up the City of London. That site would make a most admirable park and playground for the children of Finsbury, which is the most crowded district in the City of London. Nobody has been buried in the graveyard since 1853, and nobody of note has been buried there for about 170 years. There is no earthly excuse for leaving that graveyard of six acres to clutter up the City of London any longer. It should be treated in the same sensible manner as the graveyards of Chelsea Parish Church and Holy Trinity, Brompton.
  6.33 p.m.
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, the issues raised by this proposed Bucklersbury building are more important than would appear from the rather narrowly drawn Motion of the noble Lord, and this debate is a more important one than might appear at first
  506
  sight, because upon the decision which Her Majesty's Government take, whether to interfere or not in connection with this proposed building—a decision which doubtless will be decidedly influenced by the course of events in our House this afternoon—depends to a great extent the future development of the City of London, so essential to the whole life of the community. I feel that the apparent suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that we should regard the height hitherto considered to be the maximum permissible in the City as sacrosanct for all time is rather lacking in reality.
  As I understand it from my friends who have businesses and offices in the City, there is a tremendous shortage of office accommodation, partly caused by natural development and, of course, greatly aggravated by the destruction during the last war. The result is that office accommodation is at a premium; rents have risen to fantastically high figures, and most people whose leases are due to fall in in the near future are shaking in their shoes. Another unfortunate result has been that industry has been forced to go further and further west, and I think that the development—admittedly showing before the war—whereby offices and commercial houses were tending to invade the west, and particularly the south-west of London, has been accelerated and strengthened by this lack of accommodation in the City. I do not think that many people will feel that the amenity of south-west London has been greatly improved by its being changed from an entirely residential into a quasi-commercial area.
  While it may be desirable that fewer people should have to earn their living in the narrow confines of the City, I feel that with many of the essential commercial undertakings, particularly the Stock Exchange and other, which are situated there, we must expect to have for all time a very large number of City workers. For that reason, we must try to provide adequate modern accommodation in which they can work in comfort. I entirely agree that Ails cannot be done if we are going to rebuild London merely to the heights that have hitherto been regarded as adequate. I do not suppose the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was objecting primarily to height in itself, but

  507
  merely to the places in which an excessive height was to be found, for I think that few people would agree that the somewhat fantastic skyline of New York is in itself unattractive. For New York it is extremely suitable. Admittedly it is not suitable for here, but to say that a height of 170feet, or any other arbitrary figure, is one which is undesirable and should never be exceeded, is not, in my opinion, a position which can be reasonably maintained.
  I agree that once we get the environs of St. Paul's safeguarded, there is no reason why buildings much greater in height than 170 feet should not be contemplated. Such a development must come slowly, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that some body should be set up to be entrusted with the careful scrutiny of every new project. I should certainly be the first to oppose violently any scheme which sought in any way to remove, destroy or damage any of the monuments of the City of London. But it seems to me that the proposed Bucklersbury building, ugly though it is in itself, is not per se undesirable. I entirely agree that the Bank of England building is much too high and is more likely than Bucklersbury to interfere with the amenity of St. Paul's. There, I should like to see a fairly drastic alteration enforced. As I say, Bucklersbury itself does not appeal to my eye, but since I find practically all modern architecture singularly hideous, that may possibly be due to my jaundiced views. I should like to see something slightly less gaunt, and I agree that something taller and less square and shapeless would be a great advantage.
  I think that our architects might well take some notice of what has been done in New York, where there are these immensely tall buildings, beautifully graduated and also artistic. Bucklersbury House is not artistic and in its present suggested form it is, in my view, an eyesore. But to endeavour to halt all progress in the redevelopment of the City unless such progress is to be on traditional lines seems to me a great mistake. There are, however, one or two other considerations which have not yet been mentioned, and I should like briefly to draw the attention of your Lordships and of the Government to them. One of them is the question of the construction of Bucklers-
  508
  bury House and any similar building in regard to the lamentable possibility of another war. I would suggest that the construction should be extremely substantial, not only in view of the devastation that would be caused by the collapse of such a gigantic building but also because it seems to me, speaking without any technical knowledge, that a building of these dimensions, strongly built, might well act as a very good shield to buildings on the far side of it against any damage which might be done by any bomb that might fall. I agree that the question of fire is also one that should be given careful consideration.
  I feel, too, that in connection with all these proposed new buildings the Government should give very careful consideration to the question of traffic, on which we had such an interesting debate in this House yesterday. Traffic conditions in the City are universally recognised as chaotic, and the opportunity should be taken to try to find some way out of the difficulty when these new buildings are constructed. Methods should be devised to keep lorries off the streets. The Government should also consider the question of working hours in the City, and methods of getting people to and from their work more quickly and with less trouble. It is very difficult to suggest any solution—no practical one seems to have been found so far. But I feel that this traffic problem is indissolubly involved with the whole question of the development of the City of London. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will approve in principle this Bucklersbury project, but will consider carefully the possibility of linking up any future developments with the problem of traffic in the City of London.
  6.43 p.m.
  LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, we have heard some very important arguments in favour of the Motion in this debate on Bucklersbury House. I personally do not agree with the building as at present proposed, and I think our attitude to this building and to the whole City of London is rather controlled by what we think of history. This is not a matter for local decision only; the City of London belongs to the Commonwealth as a whole. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and other noble Lords who have spoken, that

  509
  this matter is of very great importance, and concerns an issue much wider than one building in particular.
  It may seem a pompous thing to say, but it struck me that a city is in danger of retreating from its own greatness when it permits commercial buildings to over-reach and rival its Cathedral and its church spires and towers. I do not think it is difficult to imagine how this building will look. This is a very congested area already. Frankly, I think that ideally this site should become a garden. But we cannot ask this when we realise the value of land per square inch in the City. I was standing on Waterloo Bridge to-day and looking in that direction. The site would be somewhere between Cannon Street Station and St. Paul's. Incidentally, Cannon Street Station has already spoilt the landscape, and that is not, I suppose, more than 100 feet high. One realises, standing there, what this building will mean; and what is as frightening as its height of 170 feet is its length: there will be a sheer cliff 380 feet long. We should not place too much emphasis on the closeness of the Bucklersbury site to St. Paul's. It is, in fact, a full quarter of a mile away, but as regards the distant prospect the point I have just made is important. It is extraordinarily unpleasant to imagine the Mansion House being dwarfed by a building more than twice its own height and only a few feet away. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, said about the possible gains from buildings being overshadowed. I think one would want to explore that idea, but it is one with which one could not agree. The lovely church of St. Stephen's, Walbrook, on the opposite side of the road would be made to look tiny by this plan. The Mansion House—the very centre of the civic life of the City—is only 70 feet high, and would live under the immediate shadow of this proposed new building.
  I realise that the question of reconstruction in the City of London is of the greatest importance. Buildings must go up again; we must earn our living in the world. But this is a special area, and a special area belonging to the whole Commonwealth, in which we must not move far away from the great Wren and other buildings of the past that are there.
  510
  I favour this building as a building. I think it would look fine in Paddington, or Holborn, or Finchley, but not within the walls of the City of London. If one takes what I have called this "special area" view, I suggest that we cannot possibly believe in great buildings of the past being dwarfed by tyrannous utility.
  6.47 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I have little to add to what has been said in the course of this extremely exhaustive debate. Having been a member of the Town Planning Committee of the London County Council, I have given this proposed development considerable thought in the last year. I think the position is—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the Minister is now considering this matter and has not yet made up his mind. If that is the case, then this debate is extremely timely; and we are all greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for initiating it. I am certain that the Minister will now be in a position to weigh most carefully the æsthetic and the practical, which have to be weighed before the correct decision can be made. I should like to assure the House that this matter was considered extremely carefully by the London County Council. We went into all the objections to the scheme that have been raised this afternoon. And I can add this: the original scheme went back and had to be modified on both amenity and other grounds, and the developer was not happy about that; but we had had the matter before us several times before we were satisfied that it was desirable. We were equally anxious to protect the amenity as well as the other aspects of the development.
  The only other thing is this, and I think it has not been said so far. If it were decided that this plan should be either cancelled or modified, it would mean a very heavy cost in compensation to the developer, and that cost would be borne by the London ratepayer. I do not know what it would amount to, but I suppose it would be several hundreds of thousands of pounds. It would have to come out of the City rate or out of the rate paid in the County of London. In view of the large amount involved to cover abortive expenditure up to the present time and perhaps to cover future losses,

  511
  I think the Government should consider extremely carefully before adding this to the financial burden on the ordinary London ratepayer. I personally hope that when the Minister has weighed the arguments very carefully on both sides he will come down in favour of the proposed scheme.
  6.50 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, if I begin my remarks by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, upon the eloquent way in which he has brought this matter forward and by thanking him for so doing, I do not do it in anything of the normal, polite and conventional way, customary for the Government spokesman who winds up a debate such as this. For reasons upon which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has touched, I think this debate has been more than usually useful. Most of the debates which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and I have either initiated or participated in have proved most useful. He and I did battle together over the Colonial Office building, to very good purpose, I am happy to say. But a remark was made in that debate, and again in a debate in which he and I were on opposite sides, on the two new top storeys at Carlton House Terrace, and that remark has also been made to-day by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan. He commented upon the unfortunate fact that these great projects do not catch the public eye until it is either too late or getting dangerously late for public opinion to form itself and for any action, if action should be required, to be taken. That is a point which I myself have made once or twice on both those previous occasions and it has been made again to-day. It is not in this case a Governmental responsibility, because the Government are not the planning authority here, but I think perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who is more closely connected with this subject than most of us are, might like to pass back to his friends, certainly in the London County Council, the suggestion that they could consider with profit giving more publicity at an early stage to projects which clearly have an effect on the development and well-being of our city. If that had been done in this case, some expense that he has mentioned might have been spared and some anxious scurrying to and fro might have been avoided.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am sorry I think the Government should consider to interrupt the noble Lord, but I am sure he will include in his indictment the City Corporation, which took the original decision, as being an accomplice of the London County Council.
  LORD MANCROFT: Yes. I am not indicting the London County Council; I am merely suggesting that the good work could start with them, because we have a very good and close friend amongst us. It applies to the City and to every other planning authority throughout the land which is dealing with a matter which one day may cause widespread feeling and attract much interest. It does not apply to the London County Council alone. But this is a point made in both previous debates, and I think the London County Council are probably quite familiar with it.
  I must make my position clear straight away—or rather the position of my right honourable friend, the Minister. I do not mean his personal position, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone was good enough to refer, for he is unfortunately prone in St. Thomas's Hospital, and the latest news is that he had a fair night and his condition is going along satisfactorily. I refer more to his position vis-à-vis the planning authority. Let me make it perfectly clear that my right honourable friend has not yet taken any decision, so this debate is not about something that the Minister has done but about whether he should or should not do something. The position, roughly, is this. If a person is refused planning permission he can appeal to the Minister, but if the permission is granted the Minister does not usually come into the question. He can, of course, direct the planning authority to submit an order revoking or modifying the permission that has been given, but that is a drastic and unusual step to take. It is a lot to ask the Minister to step in after all the authorities have reviewed the whole case at great length and in great detail. It is asking a great deal, and my right honourable friend wants to make it perfectly clear that he intends to intervene in this particular case only if he is absolutely convinced that a wrong decision has been taken. I want to make that point quite clear. Perhaps I can explain it by telling your Lordships that since the Act came into force, which is some years ago now, on no more

  513
  than three or four occasions have I been able to find that the Minister, when either side was in power, has so intervened. I want to make it quite clear to those who think with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that the case for the Minister's intervention has to be a strong one.
  At the moment the score, if I have it correctly, is six to three against the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. Deliberately, I am not going to add my voice to either side; but what I should like to do is to try to sum up the principal arguments upon which my right honourable friend will have to make up his mind. The first thing that he will have to do before considering those arguments is, clearly to my way of thinking, to check over again some of the figures that have been given us, because I have listened to figures this afternoon which do not tally with figures that I have already received. Obviously there is a difference of opinion, or perhaps an inaccurate approach to one or two of the important figures with which we have to concern ourselves. Those, clearly, must be agreed before the Minister can make up his mind.
  If I have listened accurately to what has been said to-day, the arguments can be grouped under five heads: bulk, height, money, employment and the whole function of the City in our national make-up. May I turn first to the question of bulk, because this was, if I understood it aright, the point upon which the Royal Fine Art Commission objected most strongly, and I do not think it has been emphasised enough in the debate that the Royal Fine Art Commission are against this scheme. They have been all along. They have admitted that this present scheme, which is on view in the Royal Gallery, is the least objectionable of those submitted, but they do not support this scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, mentioned the question of plot ratio. Plot ratio is one of the planners' ju-jus and it means the floor space—that is, all floors—compared with net area of the site. I believe I have got that right. It is rather interesting. The plot ratio for the whole of this scheme which we are discussing is 5·75. It is rather interesting to compare that with the ratio of other buildings, because it gives some idea of the actual size of this building. This scheme is 5·75; the War Office is 4·13; County Hall is 3·4; Carlton House
  514
  Terrace is 3·1; the National Gallery is 1·7 and Somerset House, which was mentioned earlier this afternoon, is 1·5. I have deliberately given those going down in a descending scale.
  Now we come to the modern buildings. Shell Mex is 8·2, and Berkeley Square House is 8·5—to mention buildings which I think your Lordships have in your mind's eye and therefore can compare fairly easily with the plans in the Royal Gallery, because the difficulty for all laymen like ourselves (not for the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone who is a most skilled professional), is to try to translate these plans and designs into reality in our mind's eye. I walked around this site last night for some time, trying to visualise what it would be like, but it is almost impossible for the layman to do it, and you have to take some form of comparison if you want to get an idea of it correctly. The purpose of this plot ratio, as I understand it, is to control bulk and density, to prevent the overshadowing of neighbouring buildings. I was struck by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, about the Trinity Church, Wall Street. That is going too far. We do not want that in the City of London. Here I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that most of these huge, featureless, cliff dwellings that we are erecting throughout the cities nowadays have little or no architectural merit at all. That is merely a personal prejudice. But, as I was about to say, the plot ratio of 5·75 for this scheme compares with the maximum of 5 which is laid down for the whole City generally, and the special maximum of 5·5 laid down in this dense building area round about the Bank.
  I thought I had better mention that question of bulk because that is what the Royal Fine Art Commission are worrying about, and they have been directing their efforts to securing an open type of development, one which allows plenty of daylight and does not give a depressing effect of undue weight and solidity. But as I understand it, unless you change the plot ratio you can attain this open type of building only by increasing the height, either all round or, as has been suggested, in certain parts. This, of course, brings us straight away to the question of height, to this argument about the City skyline. I do not think we want to be too quick on this question of the City skyline. I hope that I shall not be considered

  515
  a Philistine, but I think that in a good many of the stretches of the City skyline some of the modern, and even some of the very Victorian, embellishments have greatly improved it. If you stand on Westminster Bridge, one of the most attractive buildings, I think, is Whitehall Gardens—a remarkable piece of architecture, and a striking addition to the skyline.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: But not the City.
  LORD MANCROFT: I am taking the skyline as it is caught by your left eye when standing on the bridge. If you look further round, you have then got Shell-Mex House, a much more modern building. But if you look right round as far as you can see, the modern and the old merge together much more happily than one would have thought.
  I well remember the excitement we had in this House at the time the Bankside Power Station was going up, and I remember some fierce letters to The Times and several people at that time saying that the prospect of the Bankside Power Station and St. Paul's in juxtaposition would be intolerable. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, very sensibly pointed out that, unless you had a physiogomy designed by Picasso and had one eye in the back of your head and the other round the side, you could not possibly get a view where the two structures would stand in juxtaposition. Wherever we can, we have to strike a happy medium. Of course, we are not going to put a building of this size up against St. Paul's. It is 450 yards to the outer edge and about 500 yards to the far side. Everybody would protest if it were suggested that it should be put right up against St. Paul's and I am certain that due weight will be given to the arguments against the new Bank of England offices much nearer to St. Paul's. I should object very strongly if this building were to be up against St. Paul's; but it is not. And having looked at it carefully last night, or rather having looked at the gap, I cannot think that it will really be very offensive to the eye. But again, that is purely personal opinion.
  We have got to fix some sort of standard of height. About 125 feet appears to have been a popular one among some people, but several noble Lords have said
  516
  they could go up much higher without spoiling the skyline. Both sides may be right, but whichever decision we take it throws us back on the other horn of the dilemma. If we are going to have this height limit, and not going to have increased bulk, it must be done in one way, and in one way only; and that is by reducing the plot ratio again. That brings us on to the hard question of cash. As we all know, sites are very expensive in the City, and building costs are extremely high, and it is only natural that people should want to get as much lettable space as possible, or the venture will be unprofitable.
  The next argument is that in regard to employment. I understand that this building will house 5,000 people. If other sites were equally densely redeveloped, there would obviously be a great return of business occupancy to the City. That is quite clear. That raises two considerations. There is, of course, the convenience of a central location. It is a nuisance if you want to do business with a man to have to go halfway across London. One noble Lord, I think, suggested that one would not take the Stock Exchange to Dover. That is an extreme case, but it illustrates the need for those branches of the City's activities which are in contact with each other to be in physical contact as well. I confess that I often wonder whether these smaller firms, whether they be solicitors or accountants who are in the City, have to be there, but I suppose they know better than I do, and are there because they prefer it. But if they are there, and if these buildings on the scale of this particular erection are going to increase, the transport and traffic congestion arising from that concentration is bound to get beyond all endurance. The need for decentralisation, therefore, has to be weighed against the need for keeping the big issuing houses, Lloyds and so on, all in as close a contact as possible.
  I think we have got to consider most closely the point which Lord Rennell put before us in regard to the function of the City. What is the function of the City? We have to make up our minds whether the City of London is a show place or a work place. As I see it, that is the real question. If you take either view to extremes you will lead yourself straight away to chaos. I think this is best illustrated by a cartoon in Punch about three

  517
  weeks ago by an artist who signed himself "Acanthus." He suggested that the only way of considering this problem of buildings in close contiguity to St. Paul's was to have all other buildings put up, whether banks, power stations or schools, exactly on the same model as St. Paul's. He drew about nine copies of St. Paul's, which reduced the question to the absurdity to which it will be reduced if either of these two extremes is followed. There must be a compromise, otherwise this absurdity will result.
  The problem which faces my right honourable friend is where to draw the line, both on the question of height and on the question of density. My Lords, he is now in a better position to form an opinion. I began by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for bringing this Motion forward. He speaks with great authority as a practising architect of distinction, and he speaks with great emotion as a Londoner born and bred—one of the few who not only work but live in the City. He has done a real service this afternoon in allowing us to ventilate this matter at a time when the Minister is looking for other people's opinions and wanting to know what is the general feeling of people who have, like your Lordships, studied this matter carefully.
  To sum up, the City and the London County Council think they have arrived at the best compromise in agreeing to the plans and the plot ratio which have now been submitted. The developers say that they have co-operated over four years in revising the plans. The Royal Fine Art Commission, on the other hand, say that the building is still too bulky; they say that it will be a bad neighbour, that it will overshadow and dwarf the other buildings in the City. Some of the other experts have said that we must cut down the height, even if the design has to be adjusted further. My right honourable friend has promised in another place that he will consult those interested, on an informal basis, to see whether some common ground of agreement can be reached. One or two private conferences have been held, but I do not think there is going to be much hope of any common agreement along those lines.
  Therefore, my right honourable friend must seek for further and better particulars and make up his mind. He will bear in mind all the considerations which have been enumerated in these remarks,
  518
  and I am certain that he will be greatly influenced by the comments that have been made in your Lordships' House this afternoon. But want to end, if I may, where I began, by saying that my right honourable friend will intervene in this matter only if he is convinced that something has gone seriously wrong—that I want to make quite clear. My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for having made this additional information available, and I will make quite certain that all the points that have been made this afternoon are brought before my right honourable friend as soon as his health permits him to study this interesting subject.
  7.10 p.m.
  LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, the time is late, and I will not detain you. But should like to say two things. First, with regard to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about compensation, it is important to realise that the cost in compensation would not be great if what was in question was merely alteration of the skyline or the design of the building. Noble Lords seem rather to have got the idea that. I have been trying to say that the building should not be built at all. What If am suggesting is only an alteration, a reduction of height and so on. There is therefore no question of vast compensation. Incidentally, I understand that no licence has yet been received, so there is no hold-up in that connection. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said that all he was asking for was a licence for a certain amount for digging, so there is no hold-up.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord did go on to say, "and to be followed by a licence to proceed. "I am not giving judgment, and I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone says: "I am not asking that the building should not be built." But you can ask for conditions which will make it impossible economically for a building to be erected.
  LORD MOTTISTONE: I am grateful for the noble Viscount's intervention, but it does not alter my point. No licence has been issued for the building, therefore work cannot be started immediately. So it would be possible to make some alterations without vast compensation being involved.

  519
  The other thing I should like to say is this. We are really nearly all on the same side. I do not think I agree with the suggestion that the proportion is six to three against, because so much of what every speaker has said reflects what is in my mind. I am most anxious to make it clear that I am not trying to persuade your Lordships that this building should not be built. I am only trying to communicate to you the feeling which I, and many other people in this country, I am sure, have: that we do not want the whole character of the centre of London changed so that it becomes a series of great cliffs. I shall be glad to know whether the Government will be prepared
  520
  to consider the broader issues which I have put forward—namely, that the whole question of the London Building Acts may be delved into to some extent, and that some opportunity may be given for the general public to know more about these things in time for them to express their views. I think that this debate has been most useful, and I thank your Lordships for allowing me to bring my Motion before you. With your permission I now beg leave to withdraw it.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at twelve minutes past seven o'clock