Sitting of 26 March 1953

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN MARY

  Message from the Queen
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. HENRY STUDHOLME) reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I thank you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address expressing sympathy with Me in the great loss which I and My family have sustained by the death of My beloved Grandmother, Queen Mary.
  I know that all My People share My grief for a great Queen who, throughout a lifetime of devoted service, was happy in the knowledge of their warm regard and affection.
  It is a consolation and comfort to Me at this time of sorrow to have this further assurance of the devotion and sympathy of your House.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  TEES CONSERVANCY SUPERANNUATION SCHEME BILL
    TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ILFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till this evening, at Seven o'Clock.
Mr. Ashlon: On a point of order. This Bill was originally set down for discussion at 7 o'clock on Wednesday, 25th March. It was not until the previous evening—Tuesday,—at 11 o'clock, on the Motion for the Adjournment, that it was learned that the House would adjourn on Wednesday, and it was
808
assumed by most hon. Members that Wednesday's business would be postponed and Thursday's business would stand. It was not until approximately 24 hours ago that it was learned that this Bill had been put down for discussion at 7 o'clock tonight.
I realise the difficulties that Ilford Corporation have had with this Bill, but I consider that a matter of considerable principle is involved here. Some hon. Members have already made their arrangements, and it is possible that people who will not be here would have liked to be here for the consideration of the Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): It was not until three minutes ago that it was known that this Bill had been put down to be discussed at 7 o'clock this day. Everything had been done in accordance with Standing Orders.
Mr. Ashton: I merely raised the question for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. This kind of thing has happened before. The rule with regard to private business which is set down for 7 o'clock by the Chairman of Ways and Means is that if it is not reached for any reason it stands over automatically until the next day.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read the Third time, and passed.

PETITION (UNEMPLOYMENT, OLDHAM)
Mr. Hale: I beg to present a Petition to this honourable House from approximately 15,000 of Her Majesty's loyal subjects resident in or about the county borough of Oldham and the urban district of Chadderton in the County Palatine of Lancaster.
The Petition recites that the petitioners are concerned about the large number of persons who are wholly unemployed or temporarily stopped, which has grown from less than 200 in November, 1951, to over 3,000 in November, 1952, and which has involved the closing down of two factories belonging to the Textile Machine Makers Ltd. which have

809
operated in Oldham for upwards of a century. Your petitioners pray, briefly, that modern factory accommodation should be supplied within the borough; that steps should be taken to open full trade relations with all the countries of the world without regard to political ideology; that trade with Brazil should be reopened, thus providing a special market for the products of the county borough; that legislation should be introduced preventing factories from being sold for storage purposes only; that Her Majesty's Government should be pressed to make special allocations of Government orders for the distressed areas; that an immediate survey should be made of world textile markets with a view to planning of exports, and a special survey made of textile machinery in the industry.
The Petition closes with the words:
"And your petitioners…will ever pray, …"
etc.
To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION

    School Meals
    Mr. Morleyasked the Minister of Education what effect the increase in the price of school meals has had on the number of children partaking of these meals
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Education the daily average of dinners served in schools during the first two weeks in March, 1953; and how this compares with a similar period in 1952.
    The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh): I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave on 19th March to the hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) and Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd).
    Mr. Morley: In view of the fact that these increased prices have now been in operation for nearly four weeks, and in view of the fact that returns are made to local authorities week by week, is there
    810
    any reason why the Minister should not announce these figures very shortly?
    Miss Horsbrugh: As I said, I am asking local education authorities to let me know the number of school dinners provided on a day in June.
    Mr. Dodds: Is there any reason why the figures cannot be made available for the first two weeks in March? Is the Minister aware that this is an important matter? What is the difficulty which prevents that from being done?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I will, in June, get the figures for June of this year and June of last year. I think it is unnecessary to ask local education authorities to send in their figures too often. They will get the comparable figures for the date I have given in June.

    Adult Education Grants
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Education if she is now able to make a statement on her recent discussions with representatives of adult education organisations concerning the grants for 1953–54.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Education whether she has completed her consideration and discussions; and if she will now make a statement on the reduction of grants for adult education.
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Minister of Education if she has now completed her discussions regarding the grant for adult education in 1953–54; and if she will make a statement.
    Miss Horsbrugh: My discussions are not yet complete and I cannot yet make any statement.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Minister say why she has taken so long to reverse the decision, which she announced on 12th February, that she was proposing a cut in the Estimates for adult education of about £34,000? Would it not be better if at this stage she yielded to the pressure of the Opposition, the blandishments of the T.U.C. and the patience of the organisations concerned, and gave way on this matter?
    Miss Horsbrugh: First, I made no statement in February that there would be a cut of 10 per cent. Second, I have received only recently—probably within

    811
    the last eight or nine days—the figures for which I asked. They have to come from 47 different bodies. Those figures then have to be analysed. I shall then ask that leaders of the responsible bodies should come to meet me and discuss them. Until that is done, I cannot make a statement.
    Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. Lady deny that she proposed the cut? Does she realise that this inexcusable procrastination is disheartening these bodies and that some people believe that that was the calculated purpose?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I do not know that these bodies are disheartened. I must say that when they came to see me they were very willing to discuss this matter, and they had been discussing it with my officials previously. They know that I am going to see them again to discuss the matter further before I reach any conclusion.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Is it not clear that the Minister's sympathy with, and interest in, adult education have been made manifest throughout these discussions, and that the future of this valuable form of education can be safely left in her hands?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I think that is absolutely clear from the deputations which I have received. The difficulty is in assembling certain facts and figures. They have to come from 47 different bodies, because the grant is paid separately. I have already said—and I also said it on the Adjournment Motion—that the grant may be less, it may be the same or it may be more; but I want to see the figures and discuss them with those bodies.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Cannot the right hon. Lady assure the House that, whatever else she does, she will certainly not make it more difficult for the W.E.A. to carry on its activities in the future than it has been in the past?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am certainly in favour of the work being carried on, but the hon. Gentleman may not perhaps know that the W.E.A. get a quarter of the grant. As I said, there is a very difficult interchange between the W.E.A. and the University Extra-Mural Depart-
    812
    ments, and I think four-fifths goes to the Extra-Mural Departments. The majority of the fees go to the W.E.A., so that it is a very complex problem. That is why we are studying it.
    Mr. Edeasked the Minister of Education to give the date and terms of the communication she sent to the responsible bodies, university and other, for liberal adult education when she told them she was going to reduce the rate of her grants from the beginning of the educational year 1953–54 by 10 per cent.; and if she will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the responsible bodies to whom she sent this intimation.
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the Minister of Education on what date, in what manner and upon what occasion she told the responsible bodies for adult education that she proposed to reduce the rate of her grants from the beginning of the educational year 1953–54 by 10 per cent.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Letters were sent on 7th January of this year to the Chairman of the Universities Council for Adult Education and the General Secretary of the W.E.A. At the same time an intimation was given that I was prepared to discuss my proposals with a deputation of the organisations concerned whenever they wished to see me.
    Mr. Ede: The right hon. Lady admits that she did, as she told my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 13th February, say that there would be a 10 per cent. cut?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I think it would be very inadvisable at this moment, when discussions are going on, to go into details, but the fact is as I have stated, that I asked them to come to have discussions about this £34,000. If I had decided to make a cut completely of £34,000 I should not have asked them to come to discuss it with me. I did ask them to come, and the discussions are still going on concerning what should be done.
    Mr. Ede: Is the right hon. Lady's defence, then, that she misled the House on 13th February when she told my hon. Friend:
    "I have told these bodies that I propose to reduce the rate of my grants, from the beginning of the educational year 1953–54, by 10 per cent., as compared with those payable

    813
    in the current educational year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13 th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 81.]?
    She said nothing then about asking them to come to discuss the matter.
    Miss Horsbrugh: As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the word is "proposed." In the letter I suggested that they should come to discuss the matter with me. That was in January. They did come, and discussed it with my officers. I then received a deputation myself. With the words which the right hon. Gentleman has read I am fully in agreement, and the word is "proposed."
    Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. Lady recollect that the word I used on Friday, which she corrected, was that she "suggested" the cut? She went out of her way to correct what I said. If it is inadvisable now to say anything, why was it advisable for her to say something on 12th February? If she cannot act now because she has not the relevant information, why did she act then without information?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I had certain information that I gave to the House during an Adjournment debate recently. Because of the information, I asked bodies concerned to come and discuss the reduction. Because of the figures I then had, which I gave to the House, I asked for further figures which might make a difference to the figure I had. I have now got those figures and am considering them, and shall discuss the matter again with the responsible bodies.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is not the 1953–54 Vote for adult education the highest on record, and even if it were cut by 10 per cent., would it not still be higher than that for 1950–51, the last year when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I certainly agree that the amount of grant that I gave for the present financial year was larger than any grant ever given before. We are now discussing what the grant should be for the next academic year, and it is because of that that I want to have fuller facts and figures before I make my decision.
    Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Lady aware that all this vacillation is upsetting the adult education programme for next year? Preparations are already
    814
    being made for university extension classes, tutorial classes and pioneer work in other directions. The Government's indecision is wrecking future adult education in Britain.
    Miss Horsbrugh: That is not the point of view which has been put to me by those who have come to see me, and they are responsible people.
    Captain Pilkington: Is it not a fact that nobody wants this cut and that it would not have been necessary if it had not been for the appalling financial policy of the Labour Government?
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this matter now.
    Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. In view of the fact that on 13th February, in answer to a Question of mine, the Minister clearly said that she proposed to make a 10 per cent. reduction and not that she proposed to discuss it, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Education whether she has considered the resolution submitted to her by the University College of Leicester Board of Adult Education, associating itself with the expressions of dismay that have been conveyed to her by various responsible bodies at the proposal to reduce by 10 per cent. the grant-aid payable on the teaching programmes of those bodies; whether she is aware that the Board has been compelled to increase the fees twice within recent years to help to meet the rise in costs, which have not included her Department's grant; and what answer she has given.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir, I have seen the resolution of the University College of Leicester Board of Adult Education, and I have replied that I am carefully considering what they have told me.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware of the fact that the Board state that if the fees are further raised, they believe that it will have the effect of excluding from classes and courses the less well-paid students, that is, the younger students at the beginning of their careers, and the weekly wage earners? In view of that, will she refrain from making these increases which she contemplates?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I was a little mystified by the hon. Gentleman's Question, because he asks if I am aware that
    "… the Board has been compelled to increase the fees twice within recent years to help to meet the rise in costs, which have not included her Department's grant; …"
    There are certain classes of adult education which do not come within that sphere at all. As I told the hon. Gentleman, I am considering the report.

    Size of Classes
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education if, in view of the serious and rapid increase in the numbers of oversized classes, she will institute more frequent official checks of the numbers of such classes and publish the results.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Returns of the number of oversize classes are collected annually. I do not think that any advantage would be gained by asking for more frequent returns.
    Mr. Swingler: Has not the Minister considered that she could achieve something constructive? Is she aware that the most up-to-date figures are those for January, 1952, and that on the basis of previous experience we always have to wait for at least eight months to get the figures? Is it not possible to speed up the system of providing information, if it is impossible to have a more frequent check on the growth of the size of classes?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I have looked into the possibility of speeding up the information, but it is rather difficult. These returns take some time to prepare, and to increase their frequency would be to add to the work of local authorities and of teachers. If I can speed it up, I shall be only too willing to do so, but I think the frequency of the returns does not help us to tackle the problem. We want to see the size of classes reduced. The frequency of the returns does not help us and it might give more work more often to the teachers.

    Infants (Attendance)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Education how many children under five years of age were attending State infants schools at the last convenient date; how this compares with the previous 12 months; and if she will give an assurance that the policy of admitting under fives will be continued.
    Miss Horsbrugh: In January, 1952, there were about 175,000 children under five years of age in maintained primary schools other than nursery schools in England and Wales, compared with just under 154,000 a year earlier. My policy is not to discourage the provision of nursery classes for children under five where there is a demand for them and satisfactory conditions can be provided. Where the admission of children under five would have an adverse effect on the older children I am bound to take the line that this is an undesirable practice.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that her building policy is making it necessary for some education authorities to restrict the admittance of children under five? Is she aware that I believe they have done so in Cardiff?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I quite agree that the pressure on buildings must be for schools for children of compulsory school age. I think the hon. Member will agree with that. While this increase in the number of pupils continues we must do everything we can for nursery classes in those buildings.
    Mr. Chapman: Is the Minister aware that some authorities are deliberately thinking of cutting down the admission of children under five merely in order to keep the rates down? Will she express her disapproval of that kind of thing.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I do not know of any case, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to bring to my notice any case he knows. As for the cutting down of the number of children entering schools in order that there shall be no extra buildings and no extra teachers, I cannot see how that will make much difference to the rates.

    Bangor Normal College
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Education whether she is aware of the severe restrictions imposed on teachers in training at Bangor Normal College; and whether she will make a statement.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am aware of recent criticism of the students' regulations at Bangor Normal College and I am glad to know that these are being considered by the college authorities.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that if she is able to improve conditions at this college she will receive the support of public opinion throughout Wales? Is she further aware that the college authorities are now trying to treat her representations with the same highhanded indifference as they would if her name were Sheila Davies?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I think that the college authorities and the hon. Member know that that is not my name.
    Mr. Mulleyasked the Minister of Education what reply she has received from the governors of the Normal Training College, Bangor, following her decision that Miss Sheila Davies was expelled on unreasonable grounds; and if she will make a statement.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I have not yet received any communication from the governors of the college.
    Mr. Mulley: Is it not very unsatisfactory that the secretary to the governors should issue to the Press a statement confirming the action of the principal and the governors after the right hon. Lady has told them, exercising her rights under the Act, that the girl was expelled on unreasonable grounds? Is it not most unsatisfactory that the girl has never had any charge put to her as to the conduct which is alleged to be unsatisfactory? Will the right hon. Lady ensure that the governors of the college do not get away with this kind of thing?
    Miss Horsbrugh: As the hon. Member knows, I came to a decision, and my decision was communicated to the governors. I have not yet received any reply from them and, therefore, at the moment it would be unwise for me to make any further statement.
    Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Lady bring to the notice of the governors of the college that some 30 or 40 years ago one of the university colleges in Wales dispensed with many of the ridiculous restrictions which they are trying to impose on the students? Will she ask them to take note of what the students' representative council says in future and not penalise the president merely because she is conveying what the representative council wishes?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir, but the hon. Gentleman is there dealing with a different matter from that contained in the Question. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is a separate question. I have already dealt with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), and the other matter is a separate issue.
    Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Lady assure the principal of the college that it is her duty, and that she intends to fulfil it, to ensure that intending teachers have a reasonably free existence in their training colleges?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I think that is now quite clear to the governors of the college. I am waiting to hear from them, and I should not like to make any statement in the House until I have had their reply to the action which I was bound to take.
    Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Lady send a pre-paid envelope in order to get a reply quickly?

    School Dental Service
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Education what consultations she is having with the Dental Association with a view to increasing the number of dentists in those areas where the need is greatest.
    Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I are having a discussion later today with representatives of the British Dental Association.
    Sir W. Smithers: Will my right hon. Friend instruct her officials, and, if possible, Ministry of Health officials, in all their negotiations to treat representatives of an honourable profession with due consideration?
    Miss Horsbrugh: As far as I am aware the officials of my Department and of other Departments do treat all representatives in that way.

    University Awards
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Education what consideration led to her issuing to local education authorities Circular 263 on university awards.
    Miss Horsbrugh: My Circular was issued in connection with the new Note

    819
    on Procedure for selecting candidates for university awards which has recently been agreed between the universities and the local authority associations. The issue of the Note appeared to me to provide a convenient opportunity for drawing the attention of local education authorities to a number of important points in connection with the selection of candidates for university awards.
    Dr. King: As there is still need for more university students, is the right hon. Lady aware that, while we welcome her urging on certain local authorities the taking of a keener interest in the selection of university students, and in the widening of the range and the increasing of the number of awards, we are perturbed lest her Circular should be regarded as a discouragement to those authorities already making adequate provision? Can she assure us that that is not so?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I can certainly give that assurance to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Education the total amount paid from public sources to assist the payment of fees and expenses incurred by university students.
    Miss Horsbrugh: For 1952–53 the estimated charge on my Vote for awards made direct by my Department for fees and maintenance of students at universities is some £4 million. I have no corresponding figure of the cost of awards made by local education authorities for 1952–53, but I estimate that for 1951–52 the total expenditure of local education authorities on fees and maintenance of students at universities was about £4,900,000. This includes Exchequer grant of about £3 million.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Lady say off-hand what percentage that represents?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Not off-hand. I would rather the hon. Gentleman put down a Question.

    Primary School, Penryn
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Education when she expects to be able to give a decision on the application for controlled status for Penryn Voluntary Church of England School, Cornwall.
    Miss Horsbrugh: The controlled status Order for Penryn Primary School was made on 16th March. I am sorry that it was delayed.
    Mr. Hayman: While thanking the Minister for that statement, may I ask her to bear in mind that the two county primary schools in Penryn, of which this school is one, are in a deplorable state, and will she consider sympathetically any proposals for a new school or a new status for the school?
    Miss Horsbrugh: That, of course, is a completely different question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it down.
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Education when she expects the canteen servery for Penryn Voluntary Church of England School, Cornwall, to be ready for use.
    Miss Horsbrugh: At the beginning of the summer term.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the right hon. Lady remember that I received from the Parliamentary Secretary 10 weeks ago a promise that the servery would probably be ready by the middle of March?
    Miss Horsbrugh: The final approval for the building of the servery was given in August, 1952.

    Coronation Procession
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Education which county education authorities are allocating places to independent schools to watch the Coronation procession from the Embankment.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I understand that the Surrey local education authority have decided to make some provision for children attending independent schools.
    Mr. Russell: Why have not all the education authorities concerned done so? Does my right hon. Friend not think that it is highly discriminatory against independent schools that they are not being treated on exactly the same basis as those of the local authorities?
    Miss Horsbrugh: The matter is essentially one for decision by the individual authorities concerned. I must leave it entirely to them, but I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that a child attending school does not cease to be called a schoolchild because his parents are paying for his education.

    Unsuitable School Buildings
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education how many school buildings which have been condemned as unsuitable are still in use; in what areas they are located; and how many children are on the rolls of these schools.
    Miss Horsbrugh: A list drawn up in 1925 contained 2,827 schools of varying degrees of unsuitability. No comparable list has been drawn up since, but of the schools on the original list, 595 are still in use. I cannot say without examining the returns for each school how many children are attending them. I am sending the hon. Member a list of the areas, showing the number of schools in each.
    Mr. Swingler: Now that the Minister has turned over a new leaf in a small way by increasing the number of schools to be started this year, can she say how soon she will have any prospect at all of" ending this shameful situation in which nearly 600 schools condemned 28 years ago are still being used?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Of course, I am glad to hear from the hon. Member that I have turned over even a small leaf. I am continuing—and I say this in no party spirit—the policy my predecessor found necessary, and which, I agree, is necessary, first to deal with the absolute necessity of providing schools for the extra number of children coming to the schools. I am looking forward to a time when it may be possible to deal with the old schools, but I cannot say when it will be possible to do so.
    Miss Bacon: Since it seems likely that these schools may exist for some years, can the Minister give us an assurance that more will be done to improve them, and particularly the sanitary arrangements of some of those schools?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, I have increased the amount that local authorities can spend out of their allocations on minor projects, and a good many improvements are being done in that way.
    Mr. Remnant: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that her policy is resulting in the overcrowding of such places as grammar schools and existing buildings in which the facilities are totally unsuitable for half the number accommodated there?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I certainly want to increase the amount of school accommodation. Any overcrowding in grammar schools at this moment cannot, at any rate, be my fault. Very few grammar schools have been built since I came into office. As I have told the House previously, we are increasing the amount of school building as rapidly as we possibly can.

    Exchange School, West Hartlepool
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Education (1) whether she can now make a statement on what action she proposes to take about the sanitary conditions of the Exchange School buildings, West Hartlepool, as revealed in a report of an independent architect, a copy of which was sent to her on 4th March, 1953, who examined the school buildings on 25th February, 1953;
    (2) what expenditure she has authorised on the Exchange School buildings, West Hartlepool, since 1st October, 1952; what further expenditure she expects to authorise in the next three months; and what evidence she has that such expenditure will make this building suitable as a primary school.
    Miss Horsbrugh: As I have already informed the hon. Member, those premises cannot be regarded as unfit for use, though they are unsatisfactory in a number of respects. To mitigate the defects, I have authorised improvements to the lighting and heating at an estimated cost of £493. Further expenditure has been incurred on repairs and redecorations. The local education authority have also approved proposals for repairs to the sanitary accommodation, and I have urged that this work should be done quickly.
    Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the school was abandoned by the local education authority in 1934 as being totally out of place in modern education, that her inspector inspected the school in December and, in a letter dated 3rd March, told her of all the defects, which she has never seen, and yet she has taken the responsibility for continuing the school? Is she also aware that it was examined by an independent architect on 5th March and that he described it as "shocking," and that within the last two

    823
    weeks it has been examined by a sanitary inspector of the local authority, who has corroborated that?
    Miss Horsbrugh: That is exactly why these repairs and alterations to the sanitary work are now being done.

    Parliamentary Secretary (Duties)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Education whether she will define the limits of the responsibilities and duties assigned by her to the Parliamentary Secretary of her Department.
    Miss Horsbrugh: As Minister I am necessarily fully responsible for the work of my Department. The duties of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary are to assist me generally in discharging those responsibilities.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Lady aware that we were all very surprised to learn on Friday that the Parliamentary Secretary was not the instigator of the cuts in adult education, but that most educationists regard him as a bad influence upon her and would be relieved if he were declared redundant?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am not sure of the relevance of that supplementary question, but if the hon. Member was as much help to his Ministry and his Minister when he was a Parliamentary Secretary as my Parliamentary Secretary has been, he must have been a very good Parliamentary Secretary.

    Television
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Minister of Education whether she will make a statement on the further experiment now contemplated in television broadcasts for schools.
    Miss Horsbrugh: This is primarily a matter for the B.B.C. and the School Broadcasting Council. They have not yet put any proposals to me.
    Mr. Mayhew: Will the right hon. Lady agree that the results of the first experiment were hopeful? Will she be more encouraging towards the attitude which is being taken by the School Broadcasting Council in developing these experiments?
    Miss Horsbrugh: The B.B.C. and the School Broadcasting Council have not yet
    824
    submitted to me a copy of their joint report on the pilot experiment of May. 1952.
    Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Lady be a little more encouraging and not merely wait for proposals to be submitted to her? Television must be one of the greatest assets that the schools of the future will have.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Primarily, this is in the hands of the B.B.C. and the School Broadcasting Council; it is for them to submit proposals. I shall consider their proposals carefully, but they have not yet been submitted.
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Minister of Education what investigations have been made by her Department into the influence of commercial television on children of school age.
    Miss Horsbrugh: None, Sir.
    Mr. Mayhew: Has the right hon. Lady studied the evidence of the harmful effects of commercialised television on American schoolchildren? Will she urge on her colleagues that the interests of children in this matter should be regarded as at least as important as the interests of commercial advertisers?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I cannot study the influence of commercial television in this country as there is none at present. That in the United States has been dealt with briefly in a book published last month by U.N.E.S.C.O., which I have studied. There, under the heading "The influence of television on the school work of American pupils" it says that there was no significant difference in the school achievement between televiewing children and non-televiewing children.
    Mr. Mayhew: The reference in the report is not to commercialised television but to public service education television in the United States, and will she take her responsibilities more seriously in future? If she wants to study British advertisers' commercial broadcasting, will she listen to Radio Luxembourg for a moment?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I think that this report refers to television as a whole. As to my study of Radio Luxembourg, may I say that if I had a little more free time from this House and my duties, I might be able to study it?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Cortisone (Importation)
    Mr. Benceasked the President of the Board of Trade what limitations are placed on the importation of cortisone.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): Licences permitting private commercial imports of finished cortisone are not at present being issued. Supplies are purchased by the Ministry of Health for continuing clinical research and for use in selected hospitals where treatment can be strictly supervised.
    Mr. Bence: Would the right hon. Gentleman impress upon his right hon. Friend that it is not much use having people in hospital and giving them this treatment, which I understand is excellent treatment, if it is to be discontinued once the patients leave hospital?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I understand that the Ministry of Health still consider it necessary to control the use of this drug very carefully, as the knowledge of its long-term effects are so far incomplete. The Ministry of Health think that they can ensure that treatment is adequately supervised only if it is carried out in this way for the present.

    Carrots (Importation)
    Sir L. Ropnerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will prohibit the import of carrots during the next main crop season.
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the productive capacity of the home growers, he will prohibit the importation of carrots this year or at least during the period when the main home crop is available.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As announced on 27th January, the import of carrots will be prohibited from 1st June to 31st July. Representations have been received from the National Farmers' Union that imports of maincrop carrots should also be prohibited. On the evidence so far submitted, my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Minister of Food and I are not satisfied that a case for such prohibition has been established. We propose, however, to give
    826
    further consideration to the question before the next maincrop becomes available, and any further evidence which the National Farmers' Union submit will be taken into account.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that he should consult the Secretary of State for Scotland on this matter as well, because the cropping season there is not quite the same as the dates which he has stated?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly do that.
    Mr. Renton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the home grower is capable of satisfying fully the needs of the home market, and will he ensure that the home grower is given first place in that market?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I believe that the home grower is competitive so far as price is concerned and, I am sure, quality, and in those circumstances I hope that the fears expressed will not be justified.

    Australian Tariffs
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the proposed increases in tariff rates on imports of British textile and engineering goods into Australia: and what representations he is making to the Australian Government about this.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) on 12th March. Copies of the Australian Tariff Board's Report on internal combustion engines have now been received and are being studied by the Departments concerned.
    Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a serious matter if Australia raised tariff rates on these important British exports?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: So far as textiles are concerned, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at the answer to the previous Question. That is a fairly small problem. On the question of internal combustion engines. I am studying the Report.

    Exports
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the further downward trend

    827
    of United Kingdom exports in January and February; and what action he proposes to take to arrest this decline.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Although the monthly average of our exports for January and February, 1953, was £206 million compared with the figure of £213 million to which they had risen in the fourth quarter of 1952, no reliable inferences can be made, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, about the trend of exports from figures for such a short period. The Government are doing all they can to help our exporters in the considerable efforts they are making to overcome the difficulties of selling our goods in world markets.
    Mr. Jay: Are not the Government a little complacent about this matter? As the President has just made large relaxations of control of imports, and as there is no sign of the recovery of exports or, indeed, of any reciprocal concessions by any other countries, how does he think that he is going to achieve the export surplus which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was going to achieve?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think that the Government can be accused of complacency in this matter. The steps taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put our internal economy in order are necessary if we are to be able to make a satisfactory export drive.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that it is desirable to balance our overseas payments, if necessary at a slightly lower figure than last year, rather than have a vast turnover and a heavy trading loss in the shape of an adverse balance on overseas trading?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I agree with my hon. Friend that it certainly is necessary to balance it.
    Mr. Jay: Is the President of the Board of Trade encouraged by the fact that ever since the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the steps to which he refers, exports have in fact fallen?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am very much encouraged by the fact that our overseas balance, which was in such a disastrous condition 15 months ago, is now in very much more satisfactory shape.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman not well aware that the improvement in the trade balance is entirely due to changes on the import side?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am not aware that it is entirely due to changes on the import side. I am quite satisfied that the means taken by my right hon. Friend played a very large and integral part in achieving this state of affairs.

    Industrial Expansion, Slough
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the President of the Board of Trade if the review of industry in Slough in relation to the increased population accompanying the new L.C.C. estates has been completed by his Department; and how far the restrictions on industrial expansion in the borough will be relaxed.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The establishment of the two new L.C.C. estates in the Slough area is, of course, one of the factors which we take into account in considering applications for industrial expansion there. We shall continue to consider all applications for industrial development certificates on their merits.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been frustration of development for four years because of the drainage situation, and as there is likely to be a further large expansion at Slough next year, will he remove the present restrictions on expansion there?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I can only repeat that I judge on its merits each case as it comes before me.

    Horticultural Produce (Importation)
    Mr. Remnantasked the President of the Board of Trade what agreements have recently been concluded for the importation of horticultural produce from other countries which have not supplied us in 1951 or 1952; which are the countries; what horticultural products are covered; and what is the value expected from each country.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The only new commitment of this kind is contained in the agreement we have recently concluded with Denmark for trade in 1953, and permits the import of £1,000 of cut flowers before 30th April.

    Officers (Power of Entry)
    Mr. Gowerasked the President of the Board of Trade how many officers employed by his Department now have power to enter premises without production of a justice's warrant; and what steps he is taking to reduce these numbers.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Ninety-one, Sir. The need for the use of warrants issued by the Board of Trade is constantly examined with a view to keeping their number down to the minimum necessary. During the last 12 months the number of warrant-holders has been reduced by about 45 per cent.
    Mr. Gower: While thanking my right hon. Friend for what has been done, may I ask whether he does not agree that it is undesirable that officers of his Department should continue to enjoy powers in excess of those possessed by our police forces, and does he agree that the protections which were designed to prevent the abuse of the powers by the police should also be made available for the public against abuse by his officers?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The number of these officers has been very nearly halved during the last 12 months, and, as my hon. Friend is aware, the retention of some power of this kind is necessary for the carrying out of the duties imposed upon them.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the basis of the totalitarian State is the right of entry without warrant? Therefore, the fewer of these people there are the less likely is it that we will become a police State.

    Film Quota
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade to state for 1951–52 the numbers of first-feature and supporting programme film quota defaults; the average quotas fulfilled by, and the number of certificates of exemption granted to, exhibitors; the numbers of British films available for showing on each quota; and if he is satisfied with the present standard of quota observance.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Since the answer to the hon. Member's Question is necessarily lengthy and contains a number of figures, I will, with his permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Swingler: Can the Minister say whether the default has increased or decreased, and whether, on the basis of last year's experience, he is fully assured that the production of films is sufficient and good enough to maintain the quota and a better standard of quota observance during the coming year?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer, which contains a number of figures, and put down any Questions on it which he may think necessary.
    The answer is as follows:
    One thousand and forty-three theatres failed to achieve their prescribed quota for first-features. In 642 of these cases the extent of the failure was very small. One thousand nine hundred and one theatres failed to achieve the prescribed quota for the supporting programme.
    The average performance of exhibitors was 27 per cent. for first-features, compared with an average prescribed quota of 25.5 per cent. The average performance for the supporting programme was 24 per cent., compared with the prescribed quota of 25 per cent. The number of directions exempting theatres from quota obligations was 190.
    Without making detailed inquiries, which do not appear to be justified, I cannot tell how many films were available in the quota year 1st October, 1951–30th September, 1952, nor how many of the longer films were generally used as first-features. In the calendar year 1951, 67 films of over 6,500 feet were registered as British, and 79 in the calendar year 1952. Two hundred and nineteen shorter films were registered in 1951, and 313 in 1952.
    Although some individual theatres could no doubt make still further efforts to achieve their quotas, I am not dissatisfied with the showing which British films have secured throughout the period.

    Animals and Birds (Imports from India)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the President of the Board of Trade the number and species of all animals and birds imported from India during 1952; and the purpose for which they were imported.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The total value of animals, including birds and fishes, imported from India in 1952 was £22,339. No animals were recorded as being imported for food or for breeding, and there were no imports of horses or greyhounds; but the total includes 1,750 other quadrupeds valued at £7,845. I regret that I have no further particulars of these imports or of the purpose for which they were made.
    Mr. Freeman: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether these figures include those for Pakistan and Ceylon, and if not, could I have that information?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that down.

    Anglo-Spanish Agreement
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the President of the Board of Trade what complaints he has received from British merchants of discrimination by Spain against British exports in violation of its trade agreement.
    Mr. Peartasked the President of the Board of Trade how far there is discrimination against British exports to Spain.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Spanish authorities are, I understand, issuing licences fairly freely for the import of less-essential goods from various European countries of whose currencies they are not short. They have, however, done little as yet to carry out their undertaking to issue licences for the import of these goods from the United Kingdom at the agreed quarterly rate. The reason they give for this is the delay in their receiving sterling from Spanish exports. I have received a considerable number of complaints from United Kingdom exporters, and arrangements have been made for a meeting with the Spanish authorities next month in order to review the position.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the trade figures show that we are importing from Spain a much larger quantity of goods of sterling value than they are importing from this country, and therefore, the excuse that they are short of sterling cannot be held as valid?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am satisfied that the Spanish authorities could issue licences more freely than at present, and that is the object of the meeting which I have arranged.

    THREE-POWER TALKS
    The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
    Mr. DODDS: To ask the Prime Minister if, in view of the recent conciliatory statements by Soviet spokesmen.
    832
    he will state what action he has now taken, and what progress has been made towards meeting Mr. Malenkov in an effort to lessen international tension.
    Mr. LEWIS: TO ask the Prime Minister what approaches he has made since 2nd March to the Presidents of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the purposes of initiating three-Power talks; and what were the results attained.
    Mr. LEWIS: TO ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the friendly and conciliatory nature of the speech made by President Malenkov at the recent meeting of the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the subsequent tendencies shown by the Soviet Government to enter into high level discussions, he will now take the necessary steps to invite Presidents Eisenhower and Malenkov to join him in London for the purpose of initiating three-Power talks, in an attempt to resolve present international difficulties.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I will, with permission, answer Questions Nos. 45, 47 and 49 together.
    Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. The Prime Minister said that he would, with permission, answer Questions Nos. 47 and 45. I have, in fact, given notice that I desire No. 47 to be transferred. May I, therefore, ask the Prime Minister not to answer it with No. 45?
    Mr. Speaker: When the right hon. Gentleman gives his answer, I think he should exclude No. 47 because that has been withdrawn.
    The Prime Minister: I will answer any of the three Questions mentioned.
    Her Majesty's Government naturally welcome any indications that the Soviet Government wish to lower the political temperature. I do not feel in other matters that I need add to the answers I have given upon questions of this character.
    Mr. Dodds: Why is the Prime Minister so obstinate on a matter about which at one time he was chief advocate, and is he not aware that public anxiety has been increased by the slowness with which this Government have taken up the offer of the Russians to discuss the bringing down

    833
    of planes with the idea of preventing a repetition? Will the Prime Minister say what is the reason for this form of creeping paralysis?
    The Prime Minister: When the Soviet Government wished to discuss the question about the planes, it was thought necessary that inquiries should be made of other Governments associated with us on the same front, and that is why there was a little delay. As I made quite clear to the House, we welcome the opportunity of a meeting between the authorities concerned on both sides with General Chuikov.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the Prime Minister hoping for any progress in the next few days or the next few weeks?
    The Prime Minister: I have a feeling that nearly all of us feel the same about these things. Do let us be careful not to try and press any particular step or date or occasion. Even if great results could not be obtained, it might be that small results would be beneficial.
    Mr. Lewis: In the last part of Question No. 49 I have asked the Prime Minister whether he would at least take the initial step of asking President Eisenhower and Mr. Malenkov whether they would be prepared to come to London to meet him? Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he cannot at least make that approach or make a statement to the effect that he would be willing to make that approach? That would at least show willingness on the part of Her Majesty's Government and would reciprocate some of the conciliatory statements which we are getting from Mr. Malenkov at the moment.
    The Prime Minister: Supposing we took the step which the hon. Member advocates and in both cases we met with negative answers, does he think the situation would be improved?
    Mr. Paget: May we take it that the Prime Minister has now come to the conclusion that negotiations on matters of foreign affairs are far better conducted through the Foreign Office?
    The Prime Minister: That is a very sweeping statement. I am quite clear that when there is complete agreement between the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister, as there has always been over
    834
    many years between me and my right hon. Friend, no such question of refined discrimination arises.

    U.N. TROOPS, KOREA (AMMUNITION)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister, as the head of our defence Forces, whether he was informed of the shortage of ammunition for United Nations troops in Korea; and what action was taken in the matter.
    The Prime Minister: I am informed that the ammunition supply in Korea has always been sufficient to meet the operational requirements of the United Nations Forces, and shortages of ammunition have not restricted the planning of operations.
    Mr. Shinwell: But has the right hon. Gentleman not been informed of the statement made quite recently by General van Fleet on his retirement from the command in Korea to the effect that there has been a considerable shortage of ammunition?
    The Prime Minister: I have to rely upon the official information which is transmitted to us in due course. I cannot deal with every statement that is made by an ex-commander—or even by an ex-Cabinet Minister.
    Mr. Shinwell: But would the Prime Minister be good enough to address his mind seriously to this question? Does he regard it as satisfactory that statements should be made to Congressional Committees in the United States by retiring commanders on the subject of the alleged shortage of ammunition without information being conveyed to this House in order to remove a possible misleading statement of this kind?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think it would be a good thing if we were to let our procedure in this House be governed by investigations of Congressional Committees in the United States. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman ought to be very careful when he pursues this line, as he might be falling out with some of his colleagues below the Gangway.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that I am anxious

    835
    not to fall out with anybody, but if I had to choose between my hon. Friends below the Gangway and the Prime Minister I should prefer the right hon. Gentleman, because he is much easier to handle. Will he be good enough to make inquiries and to ascertain whether the statements made by General van Fleet are accurate? After all, we ought to be assured on a very important subject of this kind.
    The Prime Minister: We have regular reports, and very close and intimate relations prevail between the British Military Representative and the Commander-in-Chief in Korea. I have no doubt that the reports we have received fully justify us in giving our full confidence to the character of the statements made. May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the compliment which he paid me, and only express my regret that he should have thought it necessary to add any reservation.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: It is past half-past three.

    SMALLPOX OUTBREAK, TODMORDEN
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    Mr. HOUGHTON: To ask the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement regarding the recent outbreak of smallpox in Todmorden.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. lain Macleod): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer Question No. 94. The outbreak started among workers at a spinning mill in Todmorden who handle imported raw cotton. It seems possible that this was the source of infection both there and in a further case at Oldham. There is no evidence from previous experience that the disease can be spread by cotton except in its raw state, or as cotton waste. Up to this morning 14 cases had been confirmed, including 11 at Todmorden. Two of these cases have died. There are also four suspected cases. So far no case of smallpox has occurred outside the range of known contacts with the original cases.
    All possible preventive steps are being taken by the medical officers of health
    836
    concerned, and I would urge cotton operatives and others to whom vaccination is offered to obtain protection in this way. I have requested the Medical Research Council to carry out such investigations as are possible into the highly technical and difficult question of the transmission of smallpox infection by raw cotton.
    Mr. Houghton: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his comprehensive statement may I ask him a Question about which there may be grounds for disquiet? The first case diagnosed was that of a man while he was in the Halifax Hospital. Is there any ground for thinking that there may have been avoidable delay or unusual difficulty in diagnosing the first case?
    Mr. Macleod: I think it true to say that there was some delay in diagnosing the first case, but frankly, that is not altogether surprising because, happily, our doctors never, or very rarely, see smallpox in this country, I would rather not go further into what is a clinical matter.
    Lieut-Colonel Schofield: Is there any danger of the infection being spread in any cotton yarn, cloth or finished materials which may have been made from that particular cotton?
    Mr. Macleod: I am advised that there is not the slightest danger of infection being spread in that way, either in the piece or in the finished article.
    Mr. Hobson: What was the original vaccinal condition of the people who are now suffering from smallpox?
    Mr. Macleod: There are about 18 cases and I could not be sure about all of them. If the hon. Gentleman would like the details perhaps he would put a Question down.
    Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we very much appreciate the prompt action which has been taken by the Ministry of Health from the time they had the information, and the courteous way in which the right hon. Gentleman personally has dealt with the matter. Can he give an assurance—I am sure he will —that will prevent in Oldham a lack of confidence, that the Ministry of Health are keeping in very close touch with the facts of the situation, which is to be

    837
    regarded with some gravity, and that he is satisfied that all the available measures are being taken?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, I am so satisfied. My senior medical officers in this field have been on the spot for some time— as soon as it was realised what the outbreak was.
    Mr. I. O. Thomas: Can the Minister indicate whether the original source of the raw cotton has been traced, and whether investigations have been made and steps taken to prevent further entry from a similar source so long as there is any doubt about it?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, those steps have been taken. The hon. Gentleman will realise that those steps fall very largely outside my Department, but the steps that can be taken to isolate the particular bales and not to use any more of the consignment in question have been taken.

    GERMANY (ARRESTED NAZIS)
    Mr. Attlee (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make on the subject of the arrests in Germany of Dr. Naumann and other Nazis.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): Yes, Sir. In my statement to the House on 28th January on the detention of seven former leading Nazis by the British authorities in Germany I said that the investigation of the evidence was continuing and would take several weeks to complete. The results have now been communicated to the German Federal Chancellor, who has asked that Naumann and his associates be handed over to the German Federal authorities for investigation and prosecution by them in a German court.
    I have authorised the High Commissioner to comply with this request and he is, of course, handing over to the German authorities the seized documents and the evidence collected during the investigation.
    The German authorities may decide not to prosecute some of the seven men detained, and in that event those not to be prosecuted will be released; but their detention and interrogation, and the impounding of their documents, will have
    838
    provided valuable evidence for the prosecution of Naumann and his associates.
    The matter will now come before the German courts and it would not be proper for me to attempt to foretell their verdict. I think, however, that the decision now taken by Dr. Adenauer and the German Federal Government, which is welcomed by Her Majesty's Government, fully justifies the action taken by the British High Commissioner, on my authority, in detaining these men for interrogation under his special powers.
    Our intention from the beginning has been to frustrate a serious potential danger, to bring the facts to light and to enable the German authorities and the German people to form their own judgment upon them. I trust that this purpose will now be served and this important matter should, I think, now be left in the hands of the German Federal Government and the German courts.
    Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that in answer to a supplementary question which I put to him on a previous Question, he said that the German Government had not the same powers as the British authorities to deal with cases like this. Are we to take it, therefore, that the principle has been established that if similar cases to this should arise, the initiative will, first of all, be taken by the High Commissioner?
    Mr. Eden: What I said to the House, which is true, was, that only the occupying Power has the powers to arrest for examination and interrogation, which is what we did in this case. We have handed over the results of our interrogations to the German authorities, who have now expressed their desire to proceed themselves. To me that seems the just and the right solution of this difficult business.
    Mr. J. Hynd: This puts rather a different complexion on the situation. Was it not the case that these men were arrested by the High Commissioner under his special powers because they were considered to be engaged in conspiracies calculated to endanger the security of the occupying Forces? If that is the case, can the Foreign Secretary tell us how German courts can possibly deal with such a charge and, if they cannot,

    839
    will he tell us on what charge they ought to be brought before the German courts?
    Mr. Eden: The point is that the German Chancellor and the German authorities, having seen the evidence of conspiracy, which is what was originally raised, now wish themselves to proceed against these men. I cannot imagine that there could be a more satisfactory solution, in view of the nature of this information, than that the German authorities themselves should take this step.
    Mr. Paget: Is it not the fact that these men have been held for a number of weeks incommunicado, denied correspondence with their lawyers, and cross-examined? Has it not up to now been considered wholly contrary to every principle of British justice that criminal charges should be based upon cross-examination conducted after arrest, without a charge being made?
    Mr. Eden: These steps were taken under the powers which the occupying Powers have, and while still under investigation it would have been prejudicial to that investigation if persons who might have been associated with their activities had been allowed unrestricted access to them. That is why the High Commissioner took the action he did, with my full authority.
    Mr. Paget: Surely that is not the point here. It may have been wholly necessary to do this in order to protect our Forces, but is it not utterly contrary to our ideas of justice that we should permit that investigation to be the basis of criminal charges brought subsequently?
    Mr. Eden: Mr. Scott Henderson was at no time prevented from having access to those charged. Others were prevented from having access, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will study the supplementary answer I have just given he will perhaps understand why.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I want to understand correctly what the Foreign Minister has said. Do we rightly understand that the investigation has shown that these men were not conspiring against the occupying Forces but were conspiring against the democratic régime in Germany?
    Mr. Eden: They were conspiring for purposes which, having examined the
    840
    evidence, the German authorities consider is such as justifies them in bringing charges against these men and trying them. That is the position. Since the German authorities themselves are prepared to bring the charges and to try them, I should have thought the whole House would have regarded this as the best possible solution of this problem.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If I understand the matter rightly, I agree with the Foreign Secretary that this is the best solution. Do we understand that if any future case should arise before the Bonn Agreements come into force we should have to go through the same thing, namely, that the Allied authorities would have to take action before the German Government could prosecute?
    Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman has made a perfectly good point in that, as I explained originally, at present the German authorities have not the exceptional powers which we enjoy under the existing statutes. It was by using those special powers that we were able to proceed in this way, and we could only proceed in this way as long as those special powers exist.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. In view of the Lying-in-State in Westminster Hall of Her late Majesty Queen Mary, the House will not meet on Monday next.
Tomorrow, a Motion will be moved to provide for the Adjournment of the House until Tuesday.
The business for the remainder of the week will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 31ST MARCH—Lords Amendments:
Transport Bill.
These Amendments are expected to be received from another place during the course of today's Sitting.
Motions to approve:
Outstanding House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Orders.

841
WEDNESDAY, 1ST APRIL—Second Reading:
Coastal Flooding (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
Committee stage: Money Resolution.
Second Reading:
Leasehold Property Act and Long Leases (Scotland) Act Extension Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY, 2ND APRIL—It is proposed to meet at 11 a.m. Questions will be taken until 12 noon.
Adjournment for the Easter Recess until Tuesday, 14th April.
Mr. Attlee: Has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to make about the procedure on the Leasehold Property Bill?
Mr. Crookshank: We had hoped to have at the same time a debate on the two White Papers, but owing to the sad necessity of changing business, that is not possible. What the Government had in view was that, if we could get the Second Reading of the Bill, which is merely extending a date, more or less in a formal way, and possibly the Third Reading as well on the day when it came back for Report and Third Reading, we would then find time for a debate on the White Papers, instead of having it, as we had intended, on the Second Reading stage. I hope that that will meet the general convenience of hon. Members.
Mr. Attlee: I think that will be satisfactory. The point was to get a full debate on the White Papers.
Mr. Wigg: Under the rules of order. Questions down for next Monday lapse, which means that the Minister of Supply, who was to have answered Oral Questions on Monday, will not be first for several weeks. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Minister of Supply to be first on the list on the first Monday after the Easter Recess?
Mr. Crookshank: It is one of the misfortunes of the case that the Questions down for Monday lapse because the House will not be sitting. They will have to be put down again, and I am rather nervous of making any commitments for changing the order of Questions.
Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that Questions lapse, but if the Questions down for Monday are put down again, would he be good enough to arrange for the Minister of Supply to give oral answers on the first Monday after we resume?
Mr. Crookshank: That is just the difficulty I see in the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. I wish I could help him and other Members in a similar position, but if we put the Minister of Supply down as first on a day on which he is not at present expecting to come first, it will push everybody else out of their right order. It is a matter which would have to be considered carefully. I would not like here and now to say that it is possible.
Mr. Wigg: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to look into it?
Mr. Crookshank: Yes, I will look into the suggestion, but I also have to bear in mind the interests of all other hon. Members.
Mr. Driberg: Would the right hon. Gentleman, at the same time, consider the case of Questions for yesterday, when the Air Ministry would have been first? It is simply a question of suspending the rota for one week.
Mr. Crookshank: That shows the difficulties we are likely to get into. If we have to change the Questions for yesterday as well as Monday, we shall throw the whole procedure into great confusion.
Sir W. Smithers: Is this not a matter for the Clerk at the Table to decide?
Hon. Members: No.

BILL PRESENTED
  COASTAL FLOODING (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL
  "to make provision for work for defence against sea water in localities affected by the flood of January, 1953, to provide for the rehabilitation of agricultural land flooded with salt water, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Sir Thomas Dugdale; supported by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, Mr. Harold Macmillan, Mr. Lennox-Boyd, The Solicitor-General, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter and Mr. Nugent; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]
  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. Crookshank.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill referred to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. J. Stuart.]

  HOSPITAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill referred to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. J. Stuart.]

  DIOCESAN STIPENDS FUNDS
  3.50 p.m.
  Sir John Crowder (Second Church Estates Commissioner): I beg to move,
  That the Diocesan Stipends Funds Measure, 1953, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  This is a simple Measure to provide for the proper use of diocesan stipends funds and to set up a suitable system of accountancy. A diocesan stipends fund has already been established for every diocese under the Reorganisation Areas Measure, 1944, and the Pastoral Reorganisation Measure, 1949. Moneys are required to be paid into these funds under schemes and orders arising from these Measures; and from donations, legacies and other contributions received for the purpose.
  Upon the funds there are charges pursuant to such schemes and orders, sometimes of a capital nature, such as the building of a new parsonage house, but more generally of an income nature; namely, for stipends of incumbents and curates. Subject to any such charges, the general purpose of the funds, in the words of the existing Measures is:
  "such purpose connected with the cure of souls within the diocese as the bishop with the concurrence of the diocesan board of finance may from time to time direct."
  The Church Commissioners hold the funds as holding trustees and are very large contributors to them.
  The existing purpose of the Measures to which I have referred is very much wider in scope than was intended when

  845
  the original Measures were passed. The real purpose of the funds, after meeting certain prior charges, is to provide or augment the stipends of incumbents, curates and others, such as lay readers, actually engaged in the cure of souls. This new Measure accordingly restricts the purpose for which these funds may be used.
  The rest of the Measure—Clauses 1 and 2—deals almost wholly with matters of accountancy, such as the proper method of discriminating between capital and income and the keeping of separate accounts for each, and so on. The Measure is uncontroversial. It passed the Church Assembly without a division at any stage, and I trust that the House will find it acceptable.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: I beg to second the Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL

    Clause 1.—(PROHIBITION OF THE CARRYING OF OFFENSIVE WEAPONS WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY OR EXCUSE.)
    3.54 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, after "or," to insert "reasonable."
    The effect of the Amendment is to insert the word "reasonable" in the phrase
    "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse."
    Its object is to meet the criticism made during the Committee stage that, as the Bill stood, a person who, for example, had on his person an offensive weapon might not be able to secure acquittal even though he had no knowledge that the weapon was there, because the fact that the possession of the weapon was illegal under the Bill meant that he could not plead having lawful excuse.
    There were various answers to this point, but I was anxious that there should be no misunderstanding or misapprehension about it, and, accordingly, I have introduced this Amendment. The insertion of the word "reasonable" meets
    846
    such a case as I have described and— as, I thought, was the position before— makes it clearly a matter of fact for the court to say whether or not the excuse is a reasonable one.
    In that way, the Amendment gives an additional safeguard to the law-abiding citizen, without weakening the Bill. It is in line with the general object of securing a Bill which effectively deters the criminal from carrying weapons, without placing good citizens in unreasonable peril. There is a consequential Amendment to the Long Title to the Bill.
    Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I thank the Home Secretary for meeting me in the criticism that I raised on this point during Second Reading. The word "reasonable" is now proposed to be added rather than the expression "knowingly,"but it does not seem to be very important whether one has to prove that a person knowingly had a weapon on him or had a reasonable excuse for having it. The Amendment undoubtedly meets the point, which is a matter of some importance.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been very reasonable and sensible about the Bill altogether. What he and everyone else in the House wants is an effective, and not an oppressive, Bill. It is important that this question has now become one of fact for the jury. There was some doubt before the Amendment, but now it is perfectly clear that it will be for the jury to decide whether a person has reasonable excuse for having the offensive weapon. If the jury are satisfied as to that, then the person will be acquitted.
    There are other cases in which innocent people might have been involved in addition to the one to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. A person may be given a parcel containing an offensive weapon and he may be quite unaware of its contents; a carrier may receive a parcel with an offensive weapon without knowing what it is; or a taxi driver found with a weapon in his taxi may have no knowledge of its presence. The Amendment, therefore, is essential, and it makes the Clause more in keeping with British justice and fairness, while leaving the Bill unimpaired in its purpose. Accordingly, I give it my full support.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Michael Higgs: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, at the end, to insert:
    (2) Nothing in this Act shall make it an offence for a person to have with him an offensive weapon if the only purpose for which he intends to use it as such is to defend himself or persons with him against unlawful attack.
    The Amendment to which the House has just agreed improves the Bill, but it has certain consequences of which we must take note. There is a line of previous statutes whereby something is prohibited unless it is done with lawful excuse, and another line of previous statutes in which things are prohibited unless they have been done with reasonable excuse. Although I prefer "reasonable excuse" in the present instance, the cases where the expression "without lawful excuse" is used are more in keeping with this present example.
    "Lawful excuse" is used where it is sought to prohibit the possession of something—in particular, in the Larceny Act, the possession of an offensive weapon; whereas "reasonable excuse" is used in statutes where it is sought to provide against failure to carry out a duty such as sending a child to school, attending when summoned to serve upon a jury, or giving a proper invoice on the delivery of coal. Consequently, it may be that the deciding cases, of which there are a number, upon what is a "reasonable excuse" will be of less help to the courts in dealing with this Measure than would have been the line of cases which deal with the expression "lawful excuse."
    4.0 p.m.
    I have never concealed my view. I would much prefer the burden of proof under this Bill to have been put where it ought to go, on the prosecution. Whatever may be one's views about that, the House has to make up its mind upon a simple question before parting with the Bill. Is it the intention of Parliament that a person who, through no other motive than that of self protection— protecting himself and perhaps his wife and children, who may be with him— carries a weapon, should be prosecuted and punished? Do we feel that the protection of oneself and family, or friends who may be with one, is a proper reason for which one should be permitted to carry a weapon?
    848
    In the Bill as it stands the matter is not free from doubt. On Second Reading the Attorney-General expressed the view that people should be discouraged from carrying weapons even for self-protection and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) expressed the same view in Committee upstairs. Hon. Members are entitled to their view as to what is right. My view is that there are plenty of people in this country who may have good reason for carrying some means of protecting themselves.
    Various illustrations were given in the course of debates on Second Reading and in Committee. The one which I think is of most general appeal is the case of the motorist or lorry driver who has to drive upon lonely roads at night. I should be firmly against it if the result of this Bill were to be that a lorry driver turned himself into a criminal if he took a heavy spanner from the tool box, and put it on the seat beside him intending to use it if someone stopped him and threatened to assault him. I would not agree that that was a proper provision for Parliament to make.
    I would not agree that it would be right for Parliament to legislate so that in a district where a criminal maniac is at large—there have been such in recent times, as hon. Members know—and a father who thinks it necessary to meet his daughter coming from work in order to be with her on her walk from the bus across a common, is prohibited from taking a stick with him. I should regard it as wrong for Parliament so to legislate.
    The House has to make up its mind about that. I do not know what is the interpretation of the Bill as it stands. I am not enough well informed to argue with hon. and learned Members on that, but different views have been expressed by those who know better than I do. Even the learned editors of "Justice of the Peace," a periodical which is much read and is followed in magistrates' courts, in an article on 7th March, said:
    "Much will depend on facts, and upon the reasonableness of magistrates, if cases of this sort come before them."
    I suggest that it would be wrong that we should leave this important matter in that state and that much should depend upon the facts of the case and the reasonableness of magistrates. In my

    849
    view, the House should make up its mind, where it is quite clear that there is honourable intention—a fact which, in many cases, will have to be proved by the accused person himself—and he is carrying a weapon to protect himself and members of his family or friends with him, that he is not committing a criminal offence under the Bill.
    If that is the right conclusion and the House is prepared to make up its mind, I ask it to accept this Amendment, or perhaps better words could be found when the Bill goes to another place. Such an Amendment would do no harm at all, but would be a very proper provision for the House to make.
    Mr. Ronald Bell (Bucks, South): I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do not wish to add very much to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) has so ably said on this subject. I am, as he is, in some doubt as to whether the Bill as it stands does include self-defence as a "reasonable excuse" or not. It seems to be a matter which would fall to be construed by the court, in the individual view of those composing it, as to what constituted reasonable conduct. When we are proposing a Bill of this kind—a rather striking and unusual Measure, as was said on Second Reading, and possibly justified by the exceptional circumstances of the crime wave which is said to exist—I think we ought to be quite clear. Parliament should lay down what is forbidden and what is permitted.
    In my opinion, self-defence should be excepted from the purview of this Bill. I got the impression on Second Reading, perhaps wrongly, that on the whole it was the view of the Government that self-defence would be exempted from the application of the Bill, but it is not clear in the language used that that is so. While I agree with the opinion expressed by the Attorney-General and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that it is not desirable, in a country where the police are not armed, that there should be any general practice of carrying weapons, or indeed, of reliance on self-defence, because society ought to undertake the defence of its law-abiding members, nevertheless one has to remember that there are many places where
    850
    society cannot get, or cannot get there in time.
    On those occasions a man has to defend himself and those whom he is escorting. It is not very much consolation that society will come forward a great deal later, pick up the bits, and punish the violent offender. Even in a country like Great Britain, with its rather dense population, there are places and occasions where self-defence and precautions for self-defence are necessary and right A Bill of this kind, which is for the prevention of crime, ought not to strike at people doing nothing but taking reasonable precautions for the defence of themselves and those whom it is their natural duty to protect.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: It seems to me that the Amendment is either unnecessary or too wide.
    I sympathise to a great extent with the spirit in which the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) approaches the Bill, as expressed in his speech on Second Reading. I confess that I had considerable doubts whether it was worth while to change the incidence of proof in criminal offences in this one isolated manner as a contribution towards dealing with the wave of violent crime. The House decided to accept the Bill. It gave it a Second Reading, and considered it carefully in Committee, and we have to accept it, because that is the will of the House.
    What does the hon. Member now propose? He proposes that it shall not be an offence, notwithstanding anything else in the Bill, for a man to carry an offensive weapon only for the purpose of self-defence. That, of course, depends on what he is expected to prove in order to be covered by the defence that would be available to him if this Amendment were agreed to. Is it enough for him to say, "I carried an offensive weapon, but I did it only because I feared attack, and to defend myself if I were attacked"? Is it enough for him to say that on oath, and, if he does say it on oath, will that give him the protection of this Amendment and be an answer to the charge?
    I am sure that the hon. Member would agree that, if that were so, to accept the Amendment would be to defeat the whole purpose of the Bill, because anybody can say it. I imagine, therefore, that the hon.

    851
    Member does not mean that at all, but that he means that the man should not merely allege in his evidence that that was his sole purpose, but that he should prove such circumstances as would make it reasonable for the court to hold that that was indeed his sole purpose.
    If that is what the hon. Gentleman intends, I suggest to him that his Amendment is unnecessary, because, having once agreed that "reasonable excuse" shall be an answer to the charge, I should find it inconceivable that any court would hold that a man who proved to its satisfaction that he was carrying an offensive weapon only for that purpose in circumstances in which it might be reasonable to suppose that this really was true, was not advancing conclusively sufficient "reasonable excuse" to satisfy the Amendment which has been moved.
    Therefore, it seems to me that, on one interpretation, the Amendment would destroy the Bill altogether, and, on the other interpretation, it is not necessary. I share to the full the dislike of putting the onus of defence on an accused person instead of on the prosecution, but there must be some limit. If, in an ordered and decent society, a man is found walking, shall we say, in Piccadilly Circus, with a loaded revolver in his pocket, I do not think it is a very unreasonable thing that the State should ask him to satisfy an impartial judicial authority that he had "reasonable excuse" for doing so.
    If a boy of 17 has a catapult in his pocket, and nails and screws of a certain length, weight and sharpness, I do not think it is unreasonable that he should be asked to show that no mischief was intended. If the Bill goes no further than that, I think we might tolerate this trespass on an ancient and honourable principle.
    4.15 p.m.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It might be helpful to the House if I indicated the view of the Government at this stage. May I begin by saying that I am in complete agreement with what has just been said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), and that I want to develop the same line and apply it to certain practical points of the administration of the law, rather than deal with the legalistic aspect of the matter.
    852
    The point which was made by the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment on the fact that it would not, in proper circumstances and with a proper weapon, be a defence, is one that I have never heard argued in all the proceedings on this Bill, and I have been here all the time. Even under the Bill as it previously stood, when the words were "lawful excuse" and the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr West) was doubtful about their effect, I should have thought it was something beyond discussion that self-defence, with all the reservations I have indicated was clearly a normal matter in our law.
    To take the practical case of the spanner: it is in the third category of our offensive weapons because it is not one that is made or adapted for the purpose of causing injury to a person. Therefore it would be necessary for the prosecution to prove intention, as stated in the Bill. As far as the attack which is envisaged in this Amendment is concerned, I have not so far seen the force of that argument deployed to the House.
    I feel that the answer goes beyond that. As has been indicated, the substitution of the word "reasonable" leaves it as a question of fact for the court to decide, and, again—I cannot emphasise it too much—with all the reservations that are contained in the doctrine of self-defence. I do not want it to go out from the House that self-defence is something that can justify retaliation or anything of that kind. With all the reservations about self-defence, I cannot believe that anyone could argue, and nobody has so far argued, that the words "reasonable excuse" would not cover self-defence in the proper circumstances. But, of course, it is right to say that any court, looking at the matter, would have to weigh the circumstances carefully.
    What I want to make clear is that the Government do not wish to lend themselves to the support of the proposition that it is right or necessary for the ordinary citizen to arm himself in self-defence. The preservation of the Queen's peace is the function of the police, and I believe that it would be a great pity if anything were done explicitly by statute to condone actions which imply the inability of the forces of law and order to maintain the Queen's peace.

    853
    It goes further than that, from the practical point of view. May I give two examples? To write into the Bill a specific sanction for the carrying of weapons for self-defence would give carte blanche to such undesirable elements as rival race gangs to arm themselves with weapons allegedly on the grounds that they were expecting to be attacked by other gangs. I do not think it would be desirable that the discretion of the court should be fettered.
    Let me take another example, which we have seen in our political lifetime. We have seen Fascist-Communist hostilities in parts of London. We have had to legislate in that respect by general consent. Where we have two rival factions, are they to be allowed to arm themselves, or to be given even the colour of permission to arm themselves, under the pretext of self-defence, and to bring about pitched battles in the streets? That would be most undesirable.
    We have dealt with the substance of the point by substituting the words "reasonable excuse" for those in the Bill. We have given the ordinary person, who in difficult circumstances is driven into this position, a complete method of showing that he has acted rightly, and we have not gone past that. I have tried to argue the matter on broad grounds, because they are important.
    On other grounds, from the point of view of interpretation, I call attention to the fact that the Clause, although intended to be a protection for the law-abiding citizen, might have a restrictive effect because the introduction of a partial interpretation would cause difficulties for the court when considering the question of "reasonable excuse." It might well oblige the court to have regard to the subsection. There is a real danger that this drafting might be given such a wide interpretation as to cause the difficulties I have mentioned.
    I have tried to meet in the Bill, as far as I can, the legitimate fears of the ordinary individual. I have carefully studied all suggestions put to me. The Amendment would make a dangerous change and I think it is unnecessary. I ask my hon. Friends not to press it.
    Mr. Ede: The House will be well advised to accept the advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend
    854
    the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I have had some experience of dealing with racecourse gangs. They always set out, each of them, with the most peaceful intentions. They believe in the famous phrase:
    "Thrice is he arm'd that hath his quarrel just."
    They hold to that belief until they see someone else who holds the same opinion. Then at once they complete the quotation:
    "But six times he who gets his blow in fust."
    Then before the magistrates' court, if one has people on both sides, the astonishing thing is that neither side started it if one believes both of them. This is a problem which has already arisen in the courts. They sometimes also have an experience which I had when I was filling the office now held by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In the East End of London when the police, by a manoeuvre, have prevented two gangs from clashing when they have got near one another, the gangs have united in throwing their stones and other weapons at the police.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend appreciates the enormous and far-reaching bearing of his present argument upon the whole rearmament policy?
    Mr. Ede: That I will develop on another occasion, when I shall not meet with the wrath of Mr. Speaker for doing it and when it will not be perhaps quite so congenial to my hon. Friend.
    It is most necessary that a Bill of this kind should be passed and that we should not hamper its administration by fanciful Amendments which we are advised by competent lawyers on both sides of the House—and heaven forbid that I should be more impressed by the one more than the other—would hinder the administration of the Measure. I agree with the quotation from the "Justice of the Peace." This is one of the cases where we must rely on the good sense of those who will administer the law. I have no doubt that if the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) appeared to defend a client of his in the spirit of his Amendment he would find that the magistrates would be at least as discriminating in their assessment of argument as is this House.
    Mr. Higgs: I have no doubt that, were I to appear to defend a man in circumstances such as those described, I should find the bench at least as discriminating as the right hon. Gentleman himself. Our discussion has cleared the air. It has cleared my mind on this subject. There is no question of any intention to prohibit in proper cases proper people with proper weapons seeking to protect themselves when they are put in jeopardy.
    I chanced to open my mail in the post office the other day at the same time as the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir). She picked up a letter from the Scottish Republican Army which I am sure would have satisfied any court that she ought to be armed if she ever went to Greenock. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. James Carmichael: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I should like an explanation on one point. The Home Secretary said that a spanner was in the third category. I can find nothing in the Bill about any categories of weapons. I should like some guidance on that matter before we go further.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you would allow me, quite irregularly, to answer the point?
    Mr. Speaker: I think that we had better keep to our usual procedure, otherwise there is no telling where we should end. I shall have to put the Question, because there was an objection to the Amendment being withdrawn.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, to leave out "reason," and to insert "reasonable cause."
    There was considerable discussion during the earlier stages of the Bill whether the words "reason to believe" imported the objective test—that is, a belief founded on reasonable grounds which had to be objectively established —or the subjective test. I have always believed—I hope, on reasonable grounds —that it imported an objective test; but, as the objective which we are all pursuing is the same. I was very anxious that there should be no doubts in the minds of anyone in the House.
    856
    4.30 p.m.
    The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) and the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West) both stated that they felt very strongly on this point and wanted the words "reasonable cause" introduced; and that is why I am prepared to do it. However, in fairness to those who have been concerned with the preparation of the Bill, I want to say that I am not asking the House to make the alteration because I think there can be a distinction between the two expressions. Hon. Gentlemen will appreciate why I am saying this. The expression that we used in the Bill appears in other statutes, for example in Section 68 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, and I should not like anything I say to throw doubt on the view—which I hold strongly—that the objective test applies to these words.
    I have gone through the long list of statutes in which there are variations in the words. I wish to make it quite clear that there is no desire in the Bill to have anything but an objective test of the constable's action. The object of the Amendment is to allay the apprehension that was expressed in the Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentlemen who are concerned will appreciate the position. I want to preserve the objective test even when the other words are used, and not do anything to the contrary. With that reservation, I move the Amendment feeling that there is not only no reasonable doubt but agreement on the words to be used.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Again, I thank the Home Secretary, this time for having inserted the words "reasonable cause" instead of using only the single word "reason." I do not want to get into a legal controversy about the matter, but I believe this to be a very necessary and substantial Amendment. It makes the Clause very much clearer and safer, and the amended form has the sanction of practice and precedent.
    I observe what the Home Secretary has said about the Act to which he referred, but it is not necessary at this point to enter into a discussion on that. In my view, the phrase "reason to believe" was not satisfactory. It sounds very much to me like the opening gambit of a police constable who is interviewing a suspected person. I am in the habit of reading

    857
    proofs in which reference is made to the words "I have reason to believe…" made by a police constable to a person he has questioned. No doubt that is a phrase which helps inquiry, but it has little or no evidentiary value in itself. "Reasonable cause" is a phrase found in the very highest authorities; it is essential language which imports that the facts in issue will have to satisfy a jury and that a jury will have to decide them.
    Even more important in this context is that it postulates that a police constable must take reasonable care that an innocent person is not unjustifiably exposed to arrest at the instance of a police constable himself without a warrant. In the context of this Bill, that appears to be a very vital matter. Moreover, it is important to note that that is our normal practice in criminal matters. As the Clause stood there was a real risk of a departure from that very salutory rule. By the Amendment the risk has been reduced to a minimum. In the case of a person wrongly but honestly arrested under the Bill by a policeman without a warrant, had the Bill remained as it was, the person arrested would have had no right of action. The proposed Amendment will safeguard that right of action, and it is, therefore, very important.
    As the Bill stood, a police constable could have arrested anyone merely on the information of an informer and, assuming that he did it honestly, there would have been no right of action at all and the police constable would have been protected. That would have been a very serious situation to bring about. As a result of the Amendment, a police constable will have to satisfy the jury that he had reasonable cause for making the arrest. The Amendment puts a barrier of proper care and reasonable justification between the citizen and arrest without warrant, and that is a very important provision to include in the Bill. I commend the Amendment to the House.
    Mr. Granville West: I should like to express my thanks to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the consideration which he has given to the points of view which have been put forward. I wish I could have been in the House when he was good enough to accept the first Amendment on the Order Paper to thank him for the consideration which he gave to it, but, un-
    858
    fortunately, I was engaged in a Select Committee upstairs.
    I am far from saying that his view on the objective test is not in the words originally put on the Order Paper. It has been said that lawyers always legislate for litigation. The point about which I was concerned was that there was no authority which governed the words originally inserted to establish the objective test. I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman supported the statement made by a noble Lord in another place, which was obiter and was a minority view—
    Mr. S. Silvennan: Was that the case of Liversidge v. Anderson?
    Mr. West: Yes. There was a minority view and the view expressed was obiter. Thus, I felt, in relation to these words, that it might be necessary at some time or another for another case to go to the House of Lords in order for it to be decided whether the words gave the objective test.
    Being a lawyer, and trying to disprove the allegation made against lawyers that we legislate for litigation, I was anxious to ensure that some words were incorporated in the Bill which would make it beyond all doubt that the objective test was intended here. The words now accepted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman have been decided by the courts as providing the objective test, and I am very grateful to him for the consideration which he has given to this matter.
    Mr. S. Silverman: As the minority opinion in the case of Liversidge and Anderson has been cited with approval so often in the House, perhaps I may venture to be a minority on this occasion. But for that case, I would have agreed with every word the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. In the early days of the war, when the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act was unanimously accepted by the House of Commons. Regulations under it were published within a few weeks which occasioned a tempest and a fury of opposition all over the country, and notably in the House of Commons.
    The then hon. Gentleman who was a leading spokesman for the Liberal Party

    859
    in those days, Mr. Dingle Foot, prayed against the Regulations and made out so powerful a case against them that they were wholly withdrawn, reconsidered by a high powered committee and re-introduced, and in their amended form they were unanimously accepted by the House. What caused the excitement? Mr. Dingle Foot said that those Regulations had to be rejected out of hand, and he quoted eloquently and ironically the poster which could be seen all over the country at that time which said:
    "Freedom is in peril. Defend it with all your might."
    We defended it with all our might, and the Regulations were withdrawn and amended.
    What was it all about? It was about Regulation 18B which, in its original form, gave the Home Secretary certain powers of arbitrary arrest provided he was satisfied about certain things. Virtually, the whole House said that that was not good enough because if all he had to do was to be satisfied, then the grounds on which he was satisfied were his own affair and were subject to no review, no challenge and no question by anyone.
    The House would not have it, and, to their credit, the Government of the day would not have it, and they took it back to amend it. What amendment did they make? They took away the word "satisfied," to which so much objection had been raised on such rational grounds, and substituted the very words of this Amendment so that the new Regulation 18B, of which we all approved, read:
    "If the Minister has reasonable cause to believe."
    We thought we had won, that we had changed the position and that we had taken away from the Home Secretary powers so arbitrary that even in war-time a British House of Commons was unwilling to entrust them to an Executive. All the great lawyers of the day, both in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords, united to persuade us that if we only changed the word "satisfied" for the words "reasonable cause to believe," then anyone interned under the Regulation would be able to say to the Home Secretary, "What was your reasonable cause? What were the
    860
    facts? What have you got against me?" We retired believing that we had effected that purpose.
    What happened in the case of Liversidge and Anderson? A man was detained under Regulation 18B, and he said to the Home Secretary, "I have done nothing wrong and intended to do nothing wrong, and, so far as I know, nobody had any cause whatever, reasonable or otherwise, to believe that I was the kind of person who ought to be detained under this Regulation. Tell me what was your reasonable cause and what were the facts on which you acted."
    The Home Secretary said, "I will not tell you; I am the person to decide. I decide for myself whether my cause is reasonable," and he filed an affidavit and testified on oath that he had "reasonable cause to believe." Therefore, if he were right, all that the House of Commons had succeeded in doing by its great and victorious revolt was to change the formula in the Home Secretary's affidavit. Whereas before, if he were challenged by a writ of habeas corpus, he would say, by his affidavit, "I am satisfied," as a result of the successful revolt of the House of Commons, the Home Secretary would instead file an affidavit in which he swore that he had "reasonable cause to believe."
    4.45 p.m.
    That interpretation was upheld in the Divisional Court, in the Court of Appeal, and ultimately by a majority in the House of Lords, with the distinguished and honourable exception of Lord Atkin. It is not for me to say whether the House of Lords were right or wrong. Presumably they were right, and it is because they were right that I am not happy about the Amendment which we are asked to accept.
    The House of Lords said it was quite right, and that what they were doing was to say of decided cases extending back a very long way, that a policeman who, for instance, effected an arrest without a warrant, might be excused if he showed to a court that he had reasonable cause to believe certain things, and that that meant that he must tell the court the facts and that on those facts the court must decide whether, in law, they amounted to reasonable cause. It seems to me that by that decision the

    861
    House of Lords reversed the whote position and met in advance the argument offered to us this afternoon.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: As I understand that decision, and as all my hon. and learned Friends who have discussed it in the courts understand it, it is this. The House of Lords did not throw any doubt on cases of wrongful imprisonment, but they said that under Regulation 18B the Home Secretary was in such a remarkable and peculiar position that in that case, and that case only, the test became a subjective test. I think the hon. Gentleman will find I am right, because I have had to consider it so often.
    Mr. Silverman: I am quite sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. What the House of Lords did was to say that the words "reasonable cause" meant one thing under Regulation 18B and a totally different thing in the other line of cases. How they reached such a remarkable conclusion, only they themselves know. Is there any real assurance concerning which of the two totally conflicting meanings will apply under this Bill?
    I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman means to do the right thing. I heard his speech and I know that his intention was to satisfy all reasonable doubts, but what he says in the House of Commons is one thing and is not evidence when it comes to the Court of Criminal Appeal or to the Divisional Court. I do not know whether anything can be done to meet the point, in view of the feeling of the House of Commons in the matter to which I have referred, but I feel far from satisfied that the Amendment really effects the purpose which everyone wishes.
    Mr. West: Would my hon. Friend agree that it has been established that the words "reasonable cause to believe" establish an objective test in the cases with which he has been dealing, but are entirely different in the case of the peculiar position of the Home Secretary?
    Mr. Silverman: I can only hope that my hon. Friend is right. I would remind him that the House of Commons, when it rejected the first draft of Regulation 18B and accepted the altered draft, did
    862
    so on the express assurance of the Government, supported by all the lawyers who were consulted, that the words "reasonable cause to believe" meant exactly the same thing in whatever Act or connection they appear; though it is true that the House of Lords decided otherwise and made an exception in the one particular case of the Home Secretary.
    I am pointing out that was an interpretation of the law which gave an exactly opposite significance to what the House of Commons had intended, and that is the difficulty in which I find myself this afternoon.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 22, leave out "reason," and insert "reasonable cause."—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]
    Mr. R. Bell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, after the first "or," to insert "subsequently."
    This Amendment is proposed for the sake of clarity. Subsection (4) uses the words:
    "…made or adapted for use for causing injury…."
    The reason this Amendment is proposed is that the word "adapted" has two different meanings. It may be used in the participal sense or in the adjectival sense. It is not entirely clear, either in the Bill or in the recorded decisions of the meaning of the word, which would be applied in this case. There is no doubt, I think, that the intention is it should be used in the participal sense, where a weapon is expressly made, or after having been made, has been adapted for use for causing injury to the person. The purpose of this Amendment is to make that clear.
    I have looked at some of the decisions on the meaning of the word "adapted" and they vary considerably. In the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act. 1939, where the expression is:
    "adapted for use as two or more suitable dwellings"
    one would naturally think that meant had been adapted. But the courts have held that it means reasonably suitable and the same interpretation has been applied under the Trade Marks Act.

    863
    I found that the Oxford English Dictionary gives the adjectival meaning which, strangely enough, is very much older and better established than the purely participal meaning. The first reference is in 1610, whereas it is not until another 200 years later that the Oxford English Dictionary finds its first quotation in the sense of, "has been adapted."
    I submit that it is desirable to make clear beyond any question of doubt which meaning is to be applied. It is of importance, because if the meaning "suitable" be accepted as the interpretation by the courts then weapons undoubtedly intended by Parliament to be in the third category will be found in the first; that is to say, weapons which could be used in two different ways which are not specially designed for causing bodily injury, but which are suitable for it would be included in the first category.
    Mr. Higgs: I beg to second the Amendment.
    There are two things which it is of importance to say. First, this is not merely a question of drafting. Depending on which meaning the courts attach to the word "adapted" the burden of proof is moved one way or the other in respect of a person carrying a weapon which, if not primarily intended to injure people, is adapted in the sense of being suitable for that purpose. In a case of that sort, where the House has clearly expressed its intention of making the prosecution prove the intention, it would shift the burden of proof so that a defendant might be in the position of having to prove his own innocence, which is obviously something which the House does not intend.
    If hon. Members think that it is stretching the use of a word to suggest that the courts might take the word "adapted" as meaning "suitable," I would refer them to the published definitions of the courts. I find that in different circumstances different interpretations have been adopted. The result is exactly fifty-fifty. In half the cases the courts use one meaning, and in the other half they use another. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: There are two points to be considered. First, are the
    864
    words in the Bill in any way doubtful or equivocal? Secondly, does the Amendment help? On the first point, the answer to both the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) is that the quotations which they have advanced in support of their argument do not apply to statutes where the word "adapted" is used in contradistinction to such a word as "made." When we have, "made or adapted" we must have "adapted" interpreted in the sense of some active change made.
    I have considered this very carefully, because it was brought to my notice in the early stages of the Bill, and I think that the context is a complete answer. But when one comes to the second point— and I am not merely juggling with words —I think that "subsequently" would introduce an element of doubt, because it is an adverb of time, and it would be by no means clear what the adaptation would have to be shown as being "subsequent to."
    5.0 p.m.
    I should like to give an example to hon. Members. Suppose someone had a bit of driftwood or a fallen branch into which a razor blade had been inserted. The insertion of the blade is no doubt an adaptation, but an adaptation subsequent to what? Is it subsequent to the finding of the wood, the picking up of the wood or the determination to use the wood as a weapon? One really is not helped by the word. I think that "made or adapted" implies the second sense of adapted, which is the sense we want; but the Bill has still to go through another place and be examined there. The best that I can do—and I hope that the House will believe that this is said in all fairness—is to say that I shall bring the latest views expressed here personally to the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and see whether we can find a better word.
    The search for words had to cover the three categories which we wanted to establish, namely, the first category of the revolver or stiletto, the second category of the razor blade fitted into a piece of wood, and the third category of the prima facie innocent thing which could be used for a weapon, and about which the onus of proof was to remain with the prosecution. The definition in the Bill

    865
    was arrived at by great thought—not confined, I am happy to admit, to myself and my own Department. But I am always prepared to look at the matter again. I give an undertaking that we shall look at it again. We think that the words in the Bill are the best, but we shall consider whether we can find something even better. I assure the House that in my view and that of right hon. Gentlemen who were good enough to help me in this matter the sense of "adapted" is clear. It should not give rise to any doubt and I ask my hon. Friends not to press their Amendment.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: First, I should like to ask the Home Secretary to accept that I do not mean in any way to depart from the discussions which we had on the Bill the other day. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) are now seeking to establish what I tried to establish by an Amendment during the Committee stage. The only difference between us is that they are using the single word "subsequently," whereas I used the triple expression "which has been." I agree with the Home Secretary that the use of the word "subsequently" is quite inadvisable.
    First of all, the word is vague and it might be taken even to refer to something that actually happened after the day of arrest. At all events, it is so flexible that it is quite unacceptable. The Home Secretary might consider whether the words which I suggested in Committee— "which has been"—are not more suitable. I have myself still some doubts about this matter as it stands. I understand that a committee which considered the Bill also had some doubts about it and the mover and seconder of the Amendment have also expressed doubts. In my experience, I have found that where even one person expresses doubt about something then, if that person is intelligent, it is worth looking into the matter, because others might also have a similar view.
    The fact that we have now introduced the phrase "reasonable cause" does provide some safeguard as it means that the circumstances and even the kind of weapon will now be factors to be taken into consideration; and if these showed that there is a reasonable excuse for an individual being in possession of a
    866
    weapon, whatever its form or adaptation, that would be sufficient. That, however, does not absolve the Home Secretary if he leaves the Bill with a terminology which is not quite as clear or sufficient as it ought to be. My own etymological researches regarding the word "adapted" had results exactly identical with those of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove. The word "adapted" has undoubtedly a two-fold meaning, and it is left in this Bill in its context with a twofold meaning. The proper thing to do, therefore, is to give the expression used in this Clause the single meaning which it is intended to bear. I certainly feel that the matter should be looked at again by the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Ede: I hope that the House will accept the promise of the Home Secretary that he will have this matter carefully examined, and, if necessary, have an Amendment made in another place. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) think that the Home Secretary is wrong. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself thinks he is right, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) thinks that all three of them are wrong.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: No, I did not say that. Perhaps that is a facetious misinterpretation on the part of my right hon. Friend. What I said was that I agreed with the purpose of the Amendment, but I did not think that the word used by the mover and seconder was the right one.
    Mr. Ede: That is precisely what I have said. My hon. and learned Friend is beginning to impute motives to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove. That is clearly out of order, because on this occasion their motives are right but their action is wrong. Then my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester wound up this short discussion by saying that we must leave this matter to the intelligence. But how am I to assess the intelligence of four people with my well-known predilection, because of our close association in political matters, for the high intelligence of my hon. and learned Friend? Obviously, this is an effort on

    867
    his part to get me to side with him on that ground.
    The Home Secretary has been perfectly fair. Where matters can be cleared up in this Bill and words can be given the plainest possible meaning, we all obviously want the utmost consideration given to that point. I hope that his hon. Friends will accept the Home Secretary's assurance and that this expression will be considered in another place.
    Mr. Bell: I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for giving his assurance that the matter will be considered. I hope that when he is passing consideration of it on to the Lord Chancellor he will also draw attention to the meaning of "constructed or adapted," which has been established in relation to vehicles. I hope, also, of course, that he will convey to his noble Friend the favourable view of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (MT. Turner-Samuels) of the intelligence of the mover and seconder of the Amendment. In the circumstances, and in view of my right hon. and learned Friend's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Title
    Amendment made: In line 2, after "or," insert "reasonable."—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read the Third time."
    5.11 p.m.
    Captain J. A. L. Duncan: After the past discussion by such a galaxy of lawyers perhaps I may be forgiven for saying a few words on the Third Reading of this Bill. I have never been very happy about the Bill, perhaps because of my Liberal ancestry. I am satisfied that this Bill in some form is necessary, but I am wondering whether it need necessarily be permanent.
    During the war, when I was the Member for North Kensington, a social worker came to me one day and said, "Do you realise that you are breeding a future generation of hooligans. Unless you do something about the education of the
    868
    London children who have been evacuated, you will have hooligans after the war." She told me, what I subsequently found out to be correct, that there were 70 children in a class in the mornings, that in the afternoon another 70 came in, so that the teacher was trying to look after 140 children in a day. For the rest of the time the children were, broadly speaking, completely out of control, because most of their fathers were away in the Forces fighting and their mothers were working in munitions factories.
    That was in 1943. In 1953 these children are 17, 18 and 19, and we have the crime wave. That social worker at Kensington was right. There is a crime wave, and I have no reason to disagree with the figures given by my right hon. and learned Friend. I am led to understand that there is another crime wave among the younger children of 11 and 12—the younger brothers who are copying their elders.
    Is there any reason why this Bill should be made permanent? These crime waves will not last for ever. They are the product of the war. Should we not put some time limit on this Bill, as was suggested on Second Reading? I am sorry that it was not possible to put down an Amendment to this effect, but as this Bill has to go to another place I appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend to consider very carefully whether he would not be prepared to advocate this Bill lasting for, say, five years to cover the junior crime wave, if I may put it in that way. We have every reason to expect that this crime wave, like others in the past, will pass away. This Bill, which is unusual, which gives the authorities special powers and which lays the onus of proof on the accused is not in the general interests of the British people, who have the traditional rights of freedom. That is my first point, that there should be some time limit on this Bill.
    Secondly, I think that those responsible for this Bill had in mind the general problem of the cosh boys. This Bill goes further than dealing with that problem, and as a country Member I wish to make a request to my right hon. and learned Friend. I may be wrong, but as I understand the Bill it might apply to a whole lot of offences committed in the countryside which have nothing whatever to do with cosh boys. Let me give two instances.

    869
    Suppose a gang of poachers armed with sten guns, or what you like, enters a glen, with the intention of committing an offence. They are, without lawful authority, carrying offensive weapons in a public place. I should have thought that a constable could arrest them to prevent the commission of the offence. This may be a way of dealing with deer poaching, but I would much rather have a deer poaching Bill, which we are hoping to get before the end of this Session, rather than dealing with deer poaching by a sidewind in a Bill intended to apply to cosh boys.
    I should have thought that an Amendment to restrict subsection (3)—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is the Third Reading and we can deal only with what is now in the Bill.
    Captain Duncan: What is in the Bill at the moment goes too far. What I am trying to do is to get something taken out of the Bill.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That would be to make an Amendment, which we cannot do now.
    Captain Duncan: It should be possible to deal with this Bill on the basis of human beings only instead of extending it, as it is now extended, to animals as well.
    Let me give one other instance. A farmer, urged on by the Ministry of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland, sows a field of oats alongside a road; rabbits start to eat the oats and the farmer goes out with a gun, perhaps an airgun, to shoot rabbits along a public road. He proceeds along the road with a reasonable excuse, but it is an offence to shoot from the road, so he would not have lawful authority; he would have an offensive weapon with him, and if he fired a shot he would be guilty of an offence, because it is illegal to fire a shot from a public road. That goes far beyond what I believe to be the intention of the Bill.
    I ask the Government carefully to consider the implications of the Bill from the point of view of the countryman, with a view to making certain that it does not go far beyond its real intention, which is to deal solely with the cosh boy.
    5.19 p.m.
    Mr. James Carmichael: It is not often in a debate that a Scottish Member who is a layman follows another Scottish Member who is also a layman. This debate has been conducted largely by legal experts, but they do not seem to be very clear themselves about the meaning of the Bill. If I asked hon. and learned Members individually to to draft this Bill, I believe they would all produce entirely different Bills. I am not happy about the Bill and, as far as I can gather from the proceedings during the Second Reading and Committee stages, many hon. and learned Members are also quite unhappy about it.
    The first thing that disturbs me is the placing of the onus on the individual who is charged or arrested by the policeman. I have watched with very great care the keenness of hon. Members opposite on every stage of this Bill, but the Amendments which have been presented today have really made no alteration to it. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was discussing the difference between "reason" and "reasonable cause," he said that he accepted "reasonable cause" because hon. Members desired it, but in his own mind he was satisfied that "reason" was just as strong.
    I fear that by introducing a Measure of this kind we are altering the procedure formerly adopted in the courts and placing the entire onus on the person arrested. I am surprised that such a Measure should have been brought forward. It assumes that we are in the midst of a great crime wave, but from the conduct of the judges in Scotland I am satisfied that the law there is strong enough to handle the situation and that there is no need for this sort of Measure.
    Violence in Scotland has been considerably reduced over the years. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I hoped that hon. Members would challenge that statement, because I can produce the figures from the Report on Prisons in Scotland, 1951. I shall now do so.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not produce this Report, because it will be out of order on the Third Reading of this Bill.
    Mr. Carmichael: If I am against the Bill being given a Third Reading, I am

    871
    surely entitled to explain why I am doing so. We are told there has been an increase in crime, and I want to disprove that statement. The Report shows that the number of violent crimes in Scotland in 1951 was 459; in 1950 it was 517; in 1938 it was 684, and in 1913 it was 1,257. Those figures are all I need quote. The law as it stands in Scotland today is quite capable of dealing with the gangster and the thug. I do not want it to be assumed for one minute that I am defending them, but I can see the difficulty in which a decent civilian might be placed.
    The next point to which I wish to refer is in regard to offensive weapons. The Home Secretary has indicated that there are certain categories of offensive weapons. They are not specified in the Bill. If I have learned anything since I have been in this House, it is to be concerned not so much with the speeches made by hon. Members in explaining a Bill but with what is actually in the Bill. I should like to give an example of what I mean in this case. A person who has been a gangster and has been arrested and punished may have come out of prison having learned the error of his ways. He may then go to a place of assembly and he may happen to have in his possession a safety razor blade in a nice little container, specially made by the manufacturers. If trouble arises in that public place of assembly and he is arrested he has an offensive weapon in his possession.
    We have no right to differentiate between one person and another in this matter, because I could think of an ordinary, peaceful citizen in some public assembly who might have precisely that kind of weapon in his possession. I would go further and say that I could mention hon. and right hon. Members here now who are in possession of similar weapons, which they use to sharpen their pencils. If I am any judge of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, he possesses one himself. I have seen him sharpening his pencil from time to time. If he were found in a place of public assembly and, because there was trouble, he was arrested with other persons in the crowd and he was found to be in possession of that pencil-sharpener, I am quite
    872
    satisfied that it would be easy for him to get out of that difficulty.
    Why should the law be such that one person possessing an offensive weapon should go scot-free and another person— because he has committed some crime in the past—be punished? This matter of an offensive weapon is dangerous primarily because responsibility is placed upon the accused. I should not mind a person being tried for possessing an offensive weapon if the Crown had to make out a case.
    I am unhappy about this Measure. I know that it will go through the House, because we are trying to appease public opinion, but the crime wave is going down and it is doing so because of the social improvement of the people. That is the way to tackle this problem—not by framing Measures about which all the lawyers disagree. If I could get anybody to support me in the Lobby I should vote against this Bill, but I know that everybody will say, "Well, we have done something to ease the crime wave in this country of ours."
    I do not like it. Lord Carmont, in the High Court of Glasgow, has given very severe punishment to these offenders. That is one way out. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) has told me that she will always carry a weapon in case somebody attacks her. Into what kind of a state are we getting when, in order to protect ourselves against the gangsters, we adopt the methods of the gangsters?
    Mrs. Jean Mann: I could very easily take off my shoe and club anyone—including the hon. Member—who interferes with me.
    Mr. Carmichael: In the first place, there will be no danger of my interfering with the hon. Lady. But the point she has raised has a bearing on this problem. A shoe which is used to assault anyone is an offensive weapon
    This might arise in the case of men going on strike. In such circumstances tension rises. I remember the general strike in Glasgow, when hundreds of people were arrested and, without any serious trial, were pushed into prison. Now a striker can be arrested if, by any chance, he has an article that can be adapted as a weapon. We have heard today how

    873
    difficult it is to explain this question of adaptation. A striker can now be charged not merely with being in a group of people who are acting unlawfully, but with being in possession of an offensive weapon, and almost any kind of article can be regarded as such.
    During the Committee stage an hon. Member said he went out at night with his golf club—his driver; probably that is the only time he can use it effectively. But that could be an offensive weapon. It would be satisfactory if the Crown had to prove that it was an offensive weapon, but the law will be that the person in possession of it has to prove that it is not an offensive weapon. If the Home Secretary wishes to intervene I shall be glad to give way.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am glad the hon. Gentleman invited me to intervene. In the case of a golf club, that is something which is prima facie innocent. In that case onus remains on the prosecution, and they have to prove that it is being carried for the purpose of causing injury to somebody else. That is the third category. The first category is where the weapon is made for the purpose of causing injury; the second category is where it is adapted for use to cause injury; and the third category is where the prosecution have to show that it is being carried with that intent. A golf club comes into the third category.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  5.32 p.m.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and having returned—
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1953.

  2. Royal Titles Act, 1953.

  And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:
  Diocesan Stipends Funds Measure, 1953.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. Carmichael: I shall be brief now, but I want to thank the Home Secretary for clearing up a point that was disturbing me. Nevertheless, I am still opposed to the Bill. This Measure was brought in to clean up a gang of thugs. I want to say a word about my own city, because it has been criticised in many parts of the country. My city is in a better state today than ever it was, and the conduct of the people there is much better than ever before, and it is because of the general social improvement brought about by administrative Government. In my opinion this Bill will not alter the situation in any way at all, for it will not alter the social conditions, or the methods of improving the lot of the people.
  In association with the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), I would ask the Home Secretary to consider seriously making this a temporary Measure. No one knows the law better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself and the Lord Advocate, and they know that for many years the present law was quite capable of meeting the problems that arose in either England or Scotland. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the advisability of making this a temporary Measure, to last, say, five years, if he likes, although it is a bad thing to introduce into the law of this country the principle that the onus of proof is entirely on the person arrested. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider that with the utmost seriousness.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) suggested that much of the answer to this problem would be found in meting out severe punishments on criminals caught in acts of crime, and I fully support the view expressed. He also supported a suggestion that this Bill might be a temporary Measure. I would support that view, too.
  I suppose the real answer is that criminals or potential criminals should

  875
  themselves render the Measure one that will not require to be used on many occasions. Therefore, the answer is really in the hands of the people of the country. We must hope that this unfortunate crime wave is only temporary. The hon. Member for Bridgeton made reference to crimes in Scotland. We down here have suffered rather unfortunately, particularly in the last few years, and many of us are very disturbed about this particular crime wave. Nevertheless, I strongly support the view expressed that this might be a temporary Measure.
  Just before Christmas, on the Adjournment, I raised this issue in connection with an unfortunate matter we experienced in Croydon. At that time I made a plea that this problem of the carrying of dangerous weapons might be considered by the Government. I thank the Home Secretary for bringing forward this Measure, because even if it prevents only one possible crime it will be well worth while. I feel that the unfortunate victims in many of these cases have not had enough consideration, and if this Bill will stop one possible crime from taking place it will have been well worth while. The title of the Bill, after all, is the "Prevention of Crime." I sincerely hope that it lives up to that description.
  I do not share the uneasiness expressed about this Bill. I am glad it has been brought in despite the fact that some hon. Members, particularly the legal ones, on either side of the House do not seem to know what will happen when the issues are brought before the courts. I hope the courts will not be put into those difficulties, but, anyhow, the intention is there to see that the weapons that, it must be admitted, were getting about the country, shall not be used. If the Bill prevents their being used, it is a good Measure. So I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for bringing it in, and I only hope that the crime wave will not last, so that this Measure will not have to be used.
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Several speakers have referred to the crime wave which exists—in their minds, at any rate —at the present time. I entirely agree that there is a phase of crime at present, and I think that the most admirable
  876
  reasons for its existence were given by the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) today. This is, surely, a phase which is going to pass, but, in the meantime, I personally think that it is as well to take all possible measures we can take to deal with such crime as exists at the present time. That is why I am very glad indeed that this Bill has been brought in. Just to what extent it will be successful in preventing crime is quite another story, and none of us can tell. I do not think it will have very much effect either way.
  I was delighted to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman putting in a word for the countryside. Far too often legislatures in all countries think only of the townsman and his needs and his crimes and his pleasures. I must say that I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's fears were well founded in this case. Surely, a farmer going to shoot rabbits with a gun in his hand could not possibly come within the mischief of this Bill? If he did, what court on earth would find him guilty? If no court would find him guilty, what police constable would attempt to take him for it?
  Captain Duncan: In Scotland, if a man carried firearms within range of the public road, the court would find him guilty.
  Mr. Mallalieu: That has nothing to do with this particular Bill, which relates to the prevention of crime. As a matter of fact, if a man had an offensive weapon on him for a perfectly legitimate purpose, he would not be punished by any court and, consequently, no police constable would take him to court. On the example of an armed poacher stealing up the glens of Angus, I can see nothing unreasonable in helping a constable, who has the courage to arrest him, and if this Bill helps to arrest him, I shall be satisfied.
  I do not think that there will be any real danger to any law-abiding citizen as a result of this Bill, and although I do not think that it will do all that the Minister would wish in suppressing crime, I doubt whether it will do any harm to law-abiding citizens, especially having regard to the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has accepted every possible effort on the part of hon. Members on both sides of the

  877
  House to bring in as many safeguards as possible. It is on that note that I wish to end.
  Although I may perhaps be running the risk of acute controversy with the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) if I suggest that it was one of my suggestions that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should make a certain improvement in the Bill, nevertheless, I did make that suggestion, and I wish to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the alteration he made in Clause 1 (3), which was one of the suggestions which I made to him during the Second Reading debate. I think that, as a result, it will now be very unlikely for anyone to be arrested and to come within the mischief of that subsection unless something really serious has happened or is about to happen. I think that is all very much to the good, and I should like to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  5.52 p.m.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not want to detain the House for more than a moment or two. It would be wrong to allow the Bill to go forward without my first expressing gratitude—and this is not mere Parliamentary form—to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House who have helped in the construction and bringing forward of the Bill. I tried, from the moment before Christmas when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked me a question, to bring this forward as an all-party matter. We have done so, and I am very grateful indeed.
  The second thing I want to do is to make one last effort to allay the doubts of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), for whose opinion I have a great respect. I ask him to consider the three categories which I will endeavour to describe. The first category is: something made for the purpose of causing injury. A man walks along—I care not whether in Sauchiehall Street, Princes Street or Piccadilly— with a revolver or a cosh or a knuckle duster in his pocket. What we are saying there, in statutory language, is that the thing itself speaks. That is a great principle of law from the beginning of time.
  878
  The second category concerns the piece of wood with a razor blade or something of that kind—there are many others with which we are familiar. If some one has actually made up that weapon of offence, again, the thing speaks, and we say, "Give your explanation. If you have a reasonable excuse, you are all right." I cannot believe that that is oppressive legislation. In the third category, concerning something which is prima facie innocent, the onus of proof remains on the prosecution.
  Applying that to the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), I very much doubt whether, with the man who is out to shoot rabbits or something of that kind, the prosecution would get over the first hurdle in this Bill. But if someone is going along the roads of Angus with a sten gun, then in heaven's name why should not he be arrested and imprisoned? That is my answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South. I have no worries about that at all.
  These are really the two points in the Bill. I only want to make one other point on the general position, and I hope that the House will bear with me. I ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton to remember the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields, in which he said that today we were dealing with a type of mind among young men which we had not seen before. The right hon. Gentleman said that one of the terrifying aspects of crime today was that it was not caused by penury or hardship. Sometimes these young men had too much money. Therefore, the ordinary rules which motivated so many social workers in the past have to be reconsidered.
  I have always said to this House that legislation alone is not enough to deal with the problem, but I do not believe that this will be an impotent Measure in the attack on the use of violence: it will at least make people think. This Bill is only part of our general plan. It works on parallel lines with the penal legislation for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible, and which we are trying to put into operation at the same time. It works on parallel lines with the increased recruitment to police forces for which the whole House has asked. Lastly, and most important of all, is the attempt for which I have asked

  879
  —and in which the whole House, I think, has given its assent—to co-operate by whatever means lies to our individual hands in improving the moral standards of our time. This Bill is one contribution to a general attack on this problem.
  I would, however, say to the House that the problem is still there. The hon. Member for Bridgeton quoted figures. Today I am glad to be able to tell the House that in 1952 there were 513,559 indictable offences known to the police as compared with 524,506 in 1951. Even so, the number of offences of breaking and entering, sexual offences, and offences of violence against the person show an increase. It is not a large increase but still an increase—in the last category of 6,516 to 6,997. [An HON. MEMBER: "United Kingdom figures?"] No, these are figures for England and Wales alone—the Bill, of course, applies to England and Wales. I say to the House that, as Home Secretary, I cannot ignore that position, and I ask the House to send this Bill forward as a contribution towards dealing with a grave problem.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES BILL

    New Clause.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO SCHEMES AND ORDERS.)
    (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any power to make a scheme under this Act shall include power to vary or revoke that scheme by a subsequent scheme.

    (2) A scheme under this Act shall not be so varied or revoked as to affect the payment of grant in pursuance of an application approved under the scheme before the coming into operation of the subsequent scheme; and a scheme under section five of this Act shall not be varied by extension of the period prescribed for the purposes of subsection (2) of that section.

    (3) Any power of the Ministers to make a scheme under this Act or an order under section five of this Act, shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.

    (4) A scheme under this Act shall be of no effect until it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament; and an order under section five of this Act shall be of no effect
    880
    until it is approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.—[Sir T. Dugdale.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    6.0 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This new Clause gives effect to the undertakings which we gave during the Committee stage to meet various Amendments which were then put forward. Combined with certain smaller Amendments to Clauses 1, 5 and 6,1 think it will give full effect to the undertakings which we then gave.
    Broadly there were two undertakings. One was that the grants towards the cost of building would be made by means of a scheme receiving the approval, by affirmative Resolution, of both Houses of Parliament. The other was that [the provision of] the white fish subsidy, which hitherto had been paid on rates which were set out in what were called arrangements made by Ministers in consultation with the Treasury, should in future be paid on rates incorporated in the scheme, again having the approval, by affirmative Resolution, of both Houses of Parliament. Those, I think, were the two main undertakings which we gave.
    There are one or two small points of detail to which I should allude. First, with respect to the scheme for rebuilding grants, during the Committee stage we discussed what should be the duration of such a scheme. I indicated then that in our opinion we should not put a limit on the duration of the scheme but should undertake that if the scheme was to be amended we would then go forward with a fresh scheme which would have to receive the assent which I have indicated. The point that I am making is that the scheme, which will first be brought in, setting out the rates of grant, will run on until such time as we consider it necessary to amend it, when we must come forward with a new scheme.
    The second point of some substance on the scheme for grants, as indeed on the scheme for the subsidy, is that we have drawn the new Clause so that the schemes will be made by Ministers in consultation with the White Fish Authority and not by the White Fish

    881
    Authority in consultation with Ministers. We gave a good deal of thought to that point and we felt that, as Ministers had the responsibility to come here and see the scheme through this House and the other place, the right procedure was for Ministers to be responsible for the scheme and to draw it up in the closest consultation with the White Fish Authority.
    On the other point relating to schemes for the subsidies, we gave an undertaking that the duration of schemes for subsidies should be limited to two years, and that then, if we wished to continue with the same subsidy structure, we should come forward with a second scheme. It will have been noticed that as they are drafted, the provisions will be for a scheme to run for two years in the first place and then for one more scheme only for the duration of the Bill.
    The practical effect of this would be that the first scheme would run for a two-year maximum and the second scheme would run for about two and three-quarter years. The Bill expires in March, 1958, and the earliest date at which we can get our first scheme will be about July this year; so that there will only be about four and three-quarter years for the provisions of the Bill to run. We felt that in the circumstances it was hardly reasonable to ask for a third scheme for possibly three-quarters of a year.
    I hope that hon. Members opposite will feel that that arrangement is within the spirit of our undertaking that we would limit these schemes to two years. In the same way, we feel that these schemes should be drafted by Ministers in consultation with the White Fish Authority, as Ministers have the responsibility to Parliament. Those are the main points to which I wish to call attention, and I think that the new Clause gives effect to the undertakings which we gave.
    Mr. Hector McNeil: I am sure that we are all indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary for embodying in the new Clause and certain Amendments to which he referred the undertakings given in Committee. We are also indebted to him for the very brief but to-the-point explanation that he has given. It is not the general experience of hon. Members on this side of the House to see such a reasonable attitude prevailing in
    882
    the Government, to be able to look at the four pages of the Amendment Paper and to realise that the Amendments have resulted from the thought and experience of my hon. Friends and the entirely reasonable attitude which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has displayed throughout these proceedings.
    Mr. Robert Boothby: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the experience of his hon. Friends. What about my experience and the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie)? We had a lot to do with this.
    Mr. McNeil: I frequently regret that the Government seem to be incapable of appreciating the value of the hon. Gentleman's experience. But I am bound, in fairness to the Government—goodness knows, they often need protection—to point out that in this instance the hon. Gentleman did not honour the Committee with a single Amendment, if my recollection is correct.
    Mr. Boothby: I made lots of speeches.
    Mr. McNeil: If the hon. Gentleman will always confine his speeches to supporting the Amendments proposed by my hon. Friends, he will never go far wrong. In that respect he did excellently in the Committee.
    I want to assure the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that we accept his reasons for the drafting of the schemes in the form which he has proposed. It is eminently preferable that the Government, whichever Government is in power, should be saddled with the responsibility for drafting the various schemes in consultation with the two authorities. We agree that since the schemes involve public moneys, the House should have access to responsible persons, in this case the Ministers specified. As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks relating to the duration of the subsidy scheme, I am not entitled to speak for everyone on this side of the House, but I should have thought that that was a commonsense way of tackling the matter, and I think it will be agreeable to the House.
    We have noted that, in the case of grant, the scheme runs until a further scheme is submitted by the Ministers concerned. If, as we all hope will prove to be wrong, the scheme is not satisfactory

    883
    for the purpose of rebuilding the fleets, then I have no doubt there will be Parliamentary pressure from both sides of the House, and certainly from these benches. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will be, as he has proved himself to be, susceptible to responsible and informed Parliamentary pressure.
    We are indebted to the Government, and I am sure that they will agree that they are slightly indebted to us, for producing a most excellent Bill. If the Minister of Transport had shown himself to be as susceptible, reasonable and responsible as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, how much better would be the outlook for the country.
    Mr. George Brown: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) I should like to say, "Thank you" to the Government for giving way on this issue. I am not so sure that I want to go so far as my right hon. Friend, and say I am greatly indebted to them. They introduced the Bill, and they will agree that it was a very poor thing then. Then they listened to our arguments and also looked at the cohorts we had behind us in the Committee stage.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary found himself in a difficulty. Either he had to retire gracefully or lose his Bill. Things being as they are, he decided to retire gracefully. He gave way to us on every point, and whilst we are always pleased when a Minister takes this line. I am quite sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary recognises his much greater indebtedness to us for having made the Bill a much better instrument. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) claims some share of the credit for this
    Mr. Boothby: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman say's "Hear, hear." I can only regret that he does not listen to his own speeches as well as make them. I have armed myself with a copy of his speech in Committee on the subject now before us, and I have noticed the hon. Gentleman's considerable contribution. We waged a vigorous battle about this question, but all he can say about it is:
    884
    "I do not feel passionately about it on either side."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 10th February, 1953; c. 14.]
    I must say that a Member who goes into a great battle which was fought with great vigour in the interests of the industry and announces that he does not feel passionately either way is going a little far when he subsequently claims credit for the way the battle went.
    I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not support us on this matter. If it had been left to him, who did not feel passionately either way, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would have stood his ground. Despite the lack of support from the hon. Gentleman, we put up a great fight for these improvements, and we now have a Bill in much better Parliamentary shape and one which will be of greater benefit to the industry. I agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that it is very much better that the Ministers concerned should be responsible and should tell us what they are going to do with the money and get our authority at the beginning or at intervals, rather than that Parliament should vote £9 million to some authority to deal with or not to deal with as circumstances might seem to them to ordain.
    Some of us were concerned earlier about the way in which this money was to be used to improve the boats. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary did give an undertaking that in the scheme there would be included some wording about the crews' accommodation. The Amendment that I put down on that subject would have included some provision in the Bill. I still wish it had been there, but we accepted the hon. Gentleman's plea not to do that. I hope he will emphasise here that the scheme will, in fact, include that particular provision. It is worrying a good many people, and I hope it will not be forgotten afterwards. The reports of Committee stages are not so often read or so easily available as the reports of what happens in this House.
    I should like to congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on having listened to what we had to say on this point, as indeed on almost every other issue that we had to raise in Committee. We had the weight of argument on our side. The only good thing in the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's favour is that he, unlike some of his colleagues, can sometimes see on which side the weight of

    885
    argument lies, and, having seen it, can give effect to it. I hope he will have the grace to say that he is indebted to us for having improved the Bill by our work in Committee.
    Mr. Boothby: I have seldom heard such a shoddy, irresponsible and biased speech as that of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). He grossly misled the House as to the facts of the case. He said that I stated that I did not feel passionately on one side or the other about this issue. He did not say that I went on to say that on balance I thought there was a formidable argument to be made in favour of the scheme being subject to the approval of this House.
    Mr. G. Brown: Can the hon. Gentleman quote to me in which column of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate in Committee he said that?
    Mr. Boothby: Why does the right hon. Gentleman not read my speeches? It is in the first or second speech. I have said it at every stage, and my hon. Friends on this side of the House will remember it.
    Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman quote it to me?
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Boothby: I have not got the Report. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman. It is there, for I said it. I said that on balance I was in favour of a scheme being produced by the Government which would have to be submitted for the approval of this House. It is within my recollection that I am right, and the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.
    Mr. Brown: You cannot quote it.
    Mr. Boothby: Because I have not got the Report in my hand. You read it. You have got it.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Hon. Members must address the Chair, not each other.
    Mr. Boothby: I am sorry, but I felt a little heated on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has been guilty of a great injustice to the Government. Every time the Government are in a reasonable attitude of mind, and ready to consider arguments on their merits and to
    886
    make Amendments accordingly, they are accused by the right hon. Gentleman of giving way or running away. They are taunted and abused in this fashion; and, if that is the attitude of the Opposition to concessions by the Government, we are not going to get very good legislation in the future.
    I think that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has shown great discretion, common sense and reasonableness. He listened to the arguments that were adduced on both sides of the Committee, and he accepted those that were reasonable. He has improved the Bill as a result and all he gets from the Opposition are taunts. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, all he gets is derision. I think it is an absolute outrage; and I should only like to say in conclusion that I most warmly welcome the Amendments made by the Minister.
    Mr. C. W. Gibson: I do not propose to put myself between the two contestants, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby). As my right hon. Friend said, HANSARD will answer the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Boothby: So it will.
    Mr. Gibson: I wish to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary if he will rise to the bait offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper. In Committee the hon. Gentleman did give something more than an assurance on this question of the condition of the crew accommodation as part of the scheme. At the end of the discussion on the Amendment which I moved, the hon. Gentleman said that he undertook to include some provision in the scheme. It is very important from the point of view of the fishermen and the trade unions which represent them that that undertaking should be fully carried out in the terms of the scheme which are to be published in connection with the distribution of these moneys. I hope the Minister will confirm the complete assurance that he gave in Committee upstairs, and that it will be fully implemented in the terms of the scheme when it is published.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): It is a pleasure that the proposed new Clause

    887
    has been accepted so readily on all sides of the House. Of course we are indebted to the Opposition, to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie), and to other Members of the Committee, who are all indebted to each other. That is the right way to put it. If my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) did not feel passionately about it, I would be very glad. I would not be very near him when he felt passionately about anything. It is in that spirit that we should approach this matter.
    On the matter of crew accommodation I give the specific pledge that it is our intention that adequate provision to meet that point should be included in the scheme. That is all that one need say.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 1.—(GRANTS BY THE AUTHORITY TOWARDS NEW VESSELS AND ENGINES.)
    Amendments made: In page 1, line 7, after "may," insert:
    "in accordance with a scheme made by the Ministers with the approval of the Treasury after consultation with the Authority."
    In page 2, line 1, leave out from "as," to end of line 3, and insert:
    "may be determined by or under the scheme."
    In line 4, at end, insert:
    "in pursuance of a scheme or schemes."
    In line 7, after "Authority," insert:
    "in accordance with such a scheme."—[Mr. Nugent.]

    clause 2.—(PROVISIONS RELATING TO GRANTS UNDER SECTION ONE.)
    Amendments made: In page 2, line 21, after "made," insert "in pursuance of a scheme."
    In line 31, after "made," insert "in pursuance of a scheme."
    In line 39, after "made," insert "in pursuance of a scheme."
    In page 3f line 1, after "made," insert "in pursuance of a scheme."—[Mr. Nugent.]

    Clause 4.—(WHITE FISH MARKETING FUND.)
    Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, at the beginning, to insert, "So much of."
    This Amendment deals with a new point. It is not entirely a drafting point, so perhaps I may say a few words in explanation of it. There was a good deal of discussion of Clause 4 in the Committee, and I undertook to see what we could do to clarify the meaning of the words "working capital," in page 3, line 37. I am moving this Amendment and a further Amendment, to line 36, in order to make the clarification which I undertook. The Clause will then read:
    "So much of any sums to be advanced to the White Fish Authority under subsection (1) of section seventeen of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951, as is required for the undertaking of operations involving the outlay of working capital, etc."
    The intention of putting the words in is to clarify the Clause. It shows that working capital is, in this context, something distinct from the general fund, which is brought into being by Clause 3, and which enables the Minister to issue finance to the Authority for the making of loans for boat building and other long-term projects, in contradistinction to the relatively small amounts, of the order of a few hundred thousand pounds, required for working capital.
    To finance the current operations of the White Fish Authority for such purposes as purchasing fish, putting it into cold storage and sending it out, relatively small amounts of money will be wanted, and the money will be going in and out of the fund at fairly short intervals. I hope that the words proposed meet the point that was made during the Committee stage.
    Mr. G. Brown: I am sorry that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has not gone further. In so far as the Amendments clarify the position we accept them. On this point we had a good deal of support from the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby). This is something on which he did come down, and he weighed in with what he calls "a very tough speech." We are glad of that. Even after amendment, the Bill will still give the right to the Minister to repay at any time the money that remains in the fund. It is absurd that that right

    889
    should be taken, because it means that the fund can be denuded at any time when the Treasury want to get hold of a bit of money. If it remained in the fund it could go on being used.
    The objection to losing the use of £200,000 is not as strong as the objection to losing the use of £20 million. Nevertheless, there is no Vote to enable us to increase the amount of money available for working capital. I see no reason for taking power to pay the money back into the Treasury before the term for which it was voted has run out. The objection in principle to doing that remains as strong as it was before.
    The total sum voted under this legislation is £20 million. Why does the Minister want to bother about the right to pay back £200,000? If £19,800,000 can remain for the period of the Bill, would it not be much easier so to provide for the whole £20 million? It makes much more sense in that way. I suspect that the advisers of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary are not anxious to go the whole way to meet us. They have felt that the arguments which we put up were good in principle, and they have, therefore, sought to put in words which meet us as to 99.8 per cent. while seeking to leave out the odd.2 per cent. Surely there cannot be any possible objection to leaving out the whole £20 million. Otherwise it means that the money available for working capital can be reduced before the Bill runs out. That would be contrary to the spirit of what Parliament intended when it voted the money.
    I do not want to say anything which seems ungrateful for the Minister's efforts to interpret the Clause clearly so that there shall be no misunderstanding, but the words "So much of" add nothing to the Clause. It could very well be argued that this is amendment for amendment's sake, because there is no real purpose in the words. The Bill has other stages before it. It has to go to another place, and the Minister has opportunities of thinking about the matter again. I urge him to think again, with a view to putting in an Amendment such as we moved upstairs, and which will be moved again later. That would be much more
    890
    sensible. The Clause would look a little less absurd and would achieve what we really want. In order that the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire can return to grace, and in the hope that we shall have a compassionate speech from him in support, I shall now sit down.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Nugent: May I try further to clarify this position? The right hon. Gentleman has not made a sound point. The expression "working capital" is already well known in this context. It is in both the Herring Industry Act, 1944, and the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1948, and as an expression it is well understood. All that we have done in this Bill in distinction from those two Acts, is that, instead of moneys for working capital being paid direct out of the Treasury to the White Fish Authority or the Herring Industry Board, which is what has happened in the past, we have now put the accounting device of the marketing fund in between.
    Under the other two Acts to which I have referred, the money was paid back direct from the White Fish Authority to the Treasury, so that the Treasury then had complete control. By putting in this accounting device we now have a fund into which the White Fish Authority can repay the money when they no longer want it and then, at the discretion of the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, as distinct from the Treasury, they decide whether the fund is so large that they no longer require as much as they had before.
    So, in fact, this device gives a lesser Treasury control of the money than existed in the two previous Acts. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that this is the practical effect of that device. It is purely an accounting device and, in the outcome, it gives Ministers rather more control over the money than they had before. I hope that the House will be able to accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 36, after "1951," insert
    "as is required."—[Mr. Nugent.]

    Clause 5.—(White fish subsidy.)
    Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 4, line 32, to leave out "Great Britain," and to insert "the United Kingdom."
    This Amendment and the long list of others to Clause 5 on the Order Paper have no point of substance in them but are entirely mechanical. The necessity for them is that Clause 5, as originally drafted, provided that the grants for the white fish subsidy were to be paid under arrangements, and in those circumstances Clause 5 applied the subsidy to Great Britain only. Grants were to be paid by the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland under arrangements made with the Treasury. Then Clause 14, by treating Clause 5 as if it were part of the 1951 Act, extended the effect of Clause 5 automatically, by the effect of Order in Council procedure, direct to Northern Ireland.
    Having altered the structure of the Bill so that effect will be given to the payment of these grants through schemes instead of arrangements, there now arises the necessity to amend Clauses 5 and 14 so that Clause 5 applies to the United Kingdom instead of to Great Britain: and there are certain consequential Amendments to Clause 14 in order to give effect to that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 34, leave out from "may," to "make," and insert:
    "in accordance with a scheme made by the Ministers with the approval of the Treasury."
    In line 37, leave out "Great Britain," and insert "the United Kingdom."
    In line 38, leave out from "as," to end of line 39, and insert:
    "may be determined by or under the scheme."
    In line 40, leave out from beginning, to "in," and insert:
    "Subject to the provisions of this section, a scheme made thereunder may provide for the payment of grants."
    In line 41, leave out "Great Britain." and insert "the United Kingdom."
    In line 42, after first "vessel," insert:
    "during a period prescribed by the scheme."
    In line 42, after "made," insert" during such a period."
    In page 5, line 1, leave out "Great Britain," and insert "the United Kingdom."
    In line 6, at end, insert:
    (3) The period prescribed for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section by any scheme made thereunder shall not extend beyond the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight, and shall not in the case of the first such scheme exceed two years.
    In line 7, after "made," insert "in pursuance of schemes."
    In line 10, leave out "appropriate."
    In line 11, leave out from "Treasury." to end of line 14.
    In line 15, leave out subsection (4).
    In line 25, leave out "Great Britain." and insert "the United Kingdom."
    In line 26, leave out from "and," to end of line 27, and insert:
    "'the Ministers' means the said Secretary of State and the said Minister."—[Mr. Nugent.]
    Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, to leave out "parallel," and to insert "meridian."
    Mr. McNeil: I am sure there is a perfectly good explanation but, since I am not aware of it, would the Minister explain the reason for this Amendment?
    Mr. Nugent: It is a very short one. As originally drafted, it was a parallel of longitude, which I think does not exist.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 6.—(Grants by the Board TOWARDS NEW VESSELS AND ENGINES.)
    Amendments made: In page 5, line 42. after "may," insert:
    "in accordance with a scheme made by the Ministers with the approval of the Treasury after consultation with the Board."
    In page 6, line 3, leave out from "as." to end of line 5, and insert:
    "may be determined by or under the scheme."
    In line 6, at end, insert:
    "in pursuance of a scheme or schemes."
    In line 9, after "Board." insert:
    "in accordance with such a scheme."—[Mr. Nugent.]

    Clause 7.—(Borrowing by and advances to the Board.)
    Amendments made: In page 7, line 4. at beginning, insert "So much of."
    In line 5, after" section, "insert" as is required."—[Mr. Nugent.]

    Clause 12.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    Amendments made: In page 8, line 29, leave out:
    "unless the context otherwise requires."
    In line 34, after "Ministers," insert:
    "(except in section five and in relation to a scheme or order under that section)."—[Mr. Nugent.]

    Clause 13.—(CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)
    Amendments made: In page 9, line 8, after "in," insert "Part I of."
    In line 10, leave out "Schedule," and insert "Part."
    In line 11, at end, insert:
    (2) The enactments specified in Part II of the said Schedule (being enactments which, to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule, are superseded by this Act or otherwise obsolete) are hereby repealed to the extent so specified.—[Mr. Nugent.]

    Clause 14.—(APPLICATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND.)
    Amendments made: In page 9, line 16, leave out "to five," and insert and four."
    In line 18, leave out "to five," and insert "and four."
    In line 27, at beginning, insert:
    "Subsections (2) to (4) of section fifteen of the Herring Industry Act, 1935 (which contain

    PART II

    ENACTMENTS REPEALED

    Section and chapter

    Short title

    Extent of repeal

    25 & 26 Geo. 5. c. 9

    The Herring Industry Act, 1935.

    Sections eight and nine.

    In section ten, in subsection (2), the words "the report and account mentioned in subsection (9) of the last foregoing section and."

    1 & 2 Geo. 6. c. 42

    The Herring Industry Act, 1938

    Sections three to five.

    In section six, in subsection (1), the words from "and subsection (3)," to "Board)," and the word "each," and subsection (2).

    In the Second Schedule the amendments of section nine of the Herring Industry Act, 1935.

    7 & 8 Geo. 6. c. 32

    The Herring Industry Act, 1944

    Section one.

    In section four, subsections (1), (2) and (3).

    Section five.

    In the Schedule, the amendments of section nine of the Herring Industry Act, 1935.

    11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 51

    The White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1948.

    In section five, subsection (4).

    Section six.

    —[Mr. Nugent.]

    consequential provisions relating to the extension of that Act to Northern Ireland) shall have effect as if."
    In line 33, leave out from beginning to "were," in line 37.
    In line 38, leave out "that section." and insert "the said section fifteen."
    In line 39, leave out
    "Except as provided by this section,"
    and insert:
    "Sections one. two, six and eleven of."— [Mr. Nugent.]

    Clause 15.—(SHORT TITLE, CITATION AND COMMENCEMENT.)
    Amendments made: In page 10, line 4, leave out "so far as it applies," and insert:
    "and section (General provisions relating to schemes and orders) so far as they apply."
    In line 11, leave out "so far as it applies," and insert:
    "and section (General provisions relating to schemes and orders) so far as they apply."— [Mr. Nugent.]

  Schedule.—(CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)
  Amendment made: In page 12, line 17, at end, add:
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  In asking the House to give the Bill a Third Reading, I should like to record my thanks for the help which I have been given by my hon. Friends and by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. The Bill has had a harmonious course. We had a valuable discussion on the Committee stage, and several constructive Amendments have been made. The broad purpose of the Bill is to help the rebuilding of our inshore and near- and middle-water fleets, on the one hand, and to enable those sections of our fleets which are not so well placed as others to keep going in the present rather difficult circumstances.
  The background to the difficulties of this perplexed industry is, no doubt, the problem of over-fishing; and we have had to have a very careful regard to seeing that in the measures we were taking in giving grants for rebuilding vessels and in giving a subsidy to assist men to continue fishing, we have not exacerbated the basic trouble of the industry.
  In the discussions which we had at length in Committee, we gave great care to finding the right balance in the rate of grants that we have now decided to give. I believe that we have found the right balance, but we have undertaken that we will carefully watch the progress of rebuilding. If we find that it goes ahead at a faster rate than we consider is justified, we shall certainly be prepared to reduce the rate of grant if we think it right to do so, or, alternatively, if we think it is the proper course, to introduce a "scrap and build "policy, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger). I believe, however, that we have found the right balance.
  It is of particular value that we should have managed to reach general agreement on all sides of the House as to what was the right balance, so that this Measure can go forward from here as one which has the full support of the whole House, and which can go to the industry as a mark of our assistance to help the industry to meet its difficulties and to get in due time on to a sounder basis
  896
  The industry will know that behind the Bill is the united voice of Parliament saying, "We think this is the right Measure for you. Now, we look to you, the industry, to make the best use of this and to do your part to reorganise the industry and, where it is inefficient, to make it efficient; to strive in collaboration with the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board to try to bring the standard of the not so good up to the standard of the best." If they will go to it with those sentiments, the Bill can do a great deal to help this perplexed industry.
  6.48 p.m.
  Mr. McNeil: There has been so much restraint and I am so anxious to assist those who have restrained that I hope I shall not be thought discourteous if I reply very shortly. There is nothing the Minister has said with which I disagree. It is a better Bill than when we first discussed it, because not only upon our advice, but upon pressure from all sides, it differs in two respects.
  First, the industry are to have larger grants, and second, Parliamentary control over public moneys is more clearly established. That is an improvement from the point of view both of the industry and, I believe, of the public. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, however, there can be no grounds for complacency on either of the two main sectors of the industry.
  Since we discussed the Bill in Committee, the facilities for conservation of these fish supplies have moved a stage further, but if the Bill is used in any way to further the rape of the northern seas this would be a bad Measure. If the industry and the two authorities—the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board—do not use this opportunity to improve their service to the consumer, they will be misusing public moneys and a great opportunity. Everyone wants to see greater imagination, greater energy and greater confidence exerted by these two authorities. With that background, on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, I welcome the Bill and wish it well.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Boothby: This is a good Bill, and I am glad that it has been welcomed by the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil). I am sure that it will go

  897
  to another place with the goodwill of hon. Members on both sides of this House.
  If I may defend myself for a moment from the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), I wish to say that I have looked at the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage, and find that I said that there was a certain weight of argument behind the right hon. Member for Greenock; and I went on to say:
  "In effect, we are divesting ourselves of the right to intervene in the conduct of a scheme unless we go as Members of Parliament to the statutory authority, which I think is undesirable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 10th February, 1953; c. 14.]
  The right hon. Member subsequently described my speech as eminently reasonable; and I therefore think I have vindicated myself from an unwarranted attack.
  There are two points arising out of this Bill, affecting the herring industry in particular, which I should like the Government very seriously to consider. The first is the desirability of seeing the younger men getting the grants and loans to the maximum possible extent. That is very important. The second is the desirability of expanding our markets for cured herring; and on this point I want to quote a sentence from a letter I have received from one of our leading curers:
  "The facts are clear, we have lost French and Belgian markets, we are facing very severe competition in the Mediterranean markets, and curing is only a fraction of its prewar importance. The Dutch on the other hand are producing and selling a larger quantity of cured herrings today than they did in 1939."
  This is a disquieting statement. The herring industry will not survive on meal and oil alone; we must retain our export markets, and therefore have a more competitive and more flexible price structure for cured herrings than we have got at present. Those are the only two points I wish to make; and I have only to add that I am sure that the Bill will be warmly welcomed by the fishing industry as a whole.
  6.54 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Evans: I welcome the Bill, but I want to strike a note of warning. Whatever we do in order to secure the building of boats we are not getting to the crux of the rehabilitation of the industry unless we do a great deal more to get more men, par-
  898
  ticularly young men, into the industry. I was very concerned to hear the Parliamentary Secretary quote these figures during the Committee stage:
  "The number of vessels in the near and middle waters fishing in 193'8 was 1,087; it had dropped to 857 in 1949; and at the end of 1952 it had dropped to 762."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 10th February, 1953; c. 48.]
  These are ominous figures and spell disaster unless we can encourage the industry to take itself in hand and use these grants to help build new and better boats.
  There is a more disquieting matter. I have been in communication with a friend in my constituency who is on a youth employment committee. During the last year they interviewed 130 boys and their parents about careers. Of those 130 boys only two started a course of training in the navigation school, and one of those has already withdrawn. Unless we can encourage the youth of this country to go into this great industry, on which we depend, not only for our economy but in large measure for safety in times of danger, it cannot survive. I hope the Government will pay particular attention to this matter. We might build the boats, but, unless we are able to man them, the industry cannot survive.
  6.56 p.m.
  Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I wish to make two points, but, before doing so, perhaps I might apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) for his apparent discourtesy in being absent when the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) was speaking. He had to attend a meeting and he asked me to apologise to the hon. Member. I am sure that we do not want to turn this into a "Boothby blow-up."
  I support very strongly the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) about the fact that this Bill will not solve the real inherent problems facing the fishing industry today. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will keep this closely in mind when the Bill comes to this House again in a short time and have concrete proposals to deal with the malaise facing the industry.
  I also ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the importance of the speedy administration of grants under this Bill. The White Fish Authority are given

  899
  powers to make grants. I should like him to let the Authority know that we are particularly anxious that there should be speedy answers, sympathetic consideration and no unnecessary delays or bureaucracy of any kind. I should like him to convey to them that we should like speedier administration of all their other work under various enactments.
  I join in the general chorus of approval and good will, not forgetting—as I do not think we should leave the Third Reading without going on record on this—our profound gratitude to the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire for the great enlightenment he brought to the Bill in Committee and on Report stage, and the great entertainment as well.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill, accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  WATER SUPPLIES, CLEVELAND
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Redmayne.]
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: The subject I am raising this evening is principally important in the local sense; it is a matter of water supplies in the Cleveland district, particularly East Cleveland. But, in raising the question of water supplies in my constituency, I am not unmindful that the situation is probably typical of many districts where water supply arrangements, which were perhaps satisfactory 50, or even 30 years ago, are now unsuited to meet the needs of developing industry and growing population.
  There will be hon. Members present at this moment who know the coastal area of the North Riding, particularly the extreme northern coastal tip approaching the estuary of the Tees. They will know that that area is not only an agricultural area but also that it is a still developing industrial district. It is physically and geographically a rather difficult dstrict, I admit, from a water supply point of view. The area with which I am particularly concerned this evening embraces several small towns and villages with names which, I think, denote the Danish
  900
  origin of the ancestors of the present population—places like Loftus, Skelton, Carling How, Brotten and Skinningrove. The statutory water supply authority is the Cleveland Water Company and there are also several private supplies of varying quantity and. unfortunately, of varying quality.
  It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

  ILFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.0 p.m.
  Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is by no means the first occasion on which the Ilford Corporation have promoted a Bill in Parliament to obtain county borough status for their borough. Before the war, the Corporation were actively concerned in the preparation of their first Bill, but the war came and the Bill was laid aside until the storm was over, or until it was almost over. Then, when questions of local government reorganisation came to be debated again, the council returned to the subject, and, in 1944, they introduced a Bill into this House. The Coalition Government were then about to set up the Local Government Boundary Commission. They gave the Ilford Borough Council an assurance that Ilford would be one of the first places to which the Boundary Commissioners would direct their attention. On that assurance, and at the request of the Government of that time, the Ilford Borough Council withdrew their Bill.
  In so far as Ilford was one of the first places visited by the Boundary Commissioners, the assurance that was given was made good, and we make no complaint as to that. But it has led to nothing. Now the Boundary Commission has been brought to an end, and no action can be expected or any further activity on their part. That was certainly not the result which the council had anticipated when they agreed to withdraw

  901
  their Bill. They had certainly expected that some conclusion would be reached as a result of the activities of the Boundary Commission.
  The next step was that, in 1950, the council promoted a second Bill in this House. The then Minister advised the House to reject that Bill on the ground that changes in local government should not be made piecemeal, and that the Government had in mind at some future date to introduce a general measure for the reorganisation of local government. There has been no Measure for the general reorganisation of local government. The Government of that time has gone. The prospect of reorganisation of local government now seems as remote as ever. So tonight the council come back, for the third time, to ask Parliament to delay no longer this reform, which they believe to be urgently needed in the interests and for the good government of the people of Ilford.
  In all these protracted proceedings, which extend now over a period of something like 13 years, nobody has ever contended that Ilford was not fit to be a county borough. Our most implacable opponents have never ventured to say that. They do not say it in this House tonight. It has been recognised that in point of the population of the borough, which is now 180,000 persons—Ilford is the largest non-county borough in Essex, and it is the second largest non-county borough in this country—in point of its financial resources, and, indeed, in point of the standard of efficiency of the services which it gives to its citizens, Ilford is in every way constituted to be a county borough. Three successive Ministers of Health and Housing and Local Government, the Boundary Commissioners and three county councils of different political complexions have never challenged our claim on any of these grounds. Our merits are admitted; indeed, they have never been called in question, and I should be surprised if they were called in question tonight.
  That relieves me of the necessity of dealing at any length with that aspect of the matter. It leaves me free to offer some observations upon those objections which have been advanced on more general grounds against our claim. I am fortified in taking that course by the knowledge that my hon. and gallant
  902
  Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, at a later stage. He is well qualified to deal with that aspect of the matter, because he was himself for many years an active and energetic member of the Ilford Borough Council.
  Indeed, it is not upon these grounds that this Bill is to be resisted. What is said is that Ilford ought to wait until some general reorganisation of local government is undertaken. If there was any prospect of a project of that character, we might be willing to wait, although, indeed, on a previous occasion, when we waited as we were urged to do, we got little reward for our patience. But the prospect of any general reorganisation of local government seems not to be in sight; it is, indeed, as remote as ever.
  I do not blame my right hon. Friend for that state of affairs. We can all readily understand that, in a House of Commons as closely divided as we are, no Government could undertake a project such as local government reform, on which we are all swayed by loyalties which may prove more powerful than loyalty to our respective parties.
  Mr. Ede: Where is the Chief Whip?
  Sir G. Hutchinson: The right hon Gentleman is over-optimistic.
  If the Government of the day is not able to reform local government, that, surely, is no reason for standing in the way when local government seeks to reform itself.
  When the Boundary Commission was set up in 1945, the House will recall that the power of local authorities to promote Bills such as this was taken from them, as, indeed, were all the normal powers of local authorities for reorganising or rearranging themselves. That was natural enough if the Government of that day expected to produce a scheme for the rearrangement of local government which it was hoped would be final and comprehensive.
  When the Boundary Commission was dissolved in 1949, the power to promote Bills such as this was expressly restored by Parliament to those boroughs the populations of which exceeded 75,000 people. Indeed, the duty of county

  903
  councils to re-arrange their districts within their counties was also expressly restored to them. They may start to do that at any time now and they must do it within a period of 10 years.
  I do not believe that when that was enacted Parliament intended to restore to the local authorities the semblance of this power and at the same time to withhold the substance. It was never contemplated that each time a bill for county borough powers was brought to this House it was to be defeated on Second Reading on the ground that the 'time was inopportune and that it should await a general reorganisation of local government. If that had been contemplated the powers should never have been restored to the local authorities. It is wrong that Parliament, having given back these powers with one hand, should now be asked to take them away with the other.
  Then it is said that Ilford is a part of Greater London and that there, at any rate, there should be comprehensive reorganisation. Of those hon. Members who advance that argument I ask, "What chance is there of any such scheme? "Hon. Members know that there is no chance at all. There is no measure of agreement among the authorities themselves, or inside or outside this House, on such a controversial topic as this. It is not reasonable to say that we should tolerate the present conditions indefinitely until at last the lion is persuaded to lie down with the lamb—or is forcibly put to rest with it.
  I say this about local government in Greater London. If the present arrangements had not come into being owing to the general development of events, no one outside a madhouse would have thought of creating them. Ilford is a typical case. It is a great suburban and industrial place, one of the largest municipal authorities. It is a part of London, if you like, but it is not governed in any way from London or in relation to London.
  The principal services of the town-education, the domiciliary health services, the welfare services, the care of aged persons and the new children's service, which is so important—are administered, not from Ilford, nor in-
  904
  deed from any part of London. They are administered from a country town 20 miles away, in the heart of Essex, by an authority whose main concern— and I make no complaint of this because it is their main concern—is the administration of what is still in the main a rural county.
  Mr. Frederick Messer:No.
  Sir G. Hutchinson: Yes. It is these conditions which the House is to be invited to impose upon these great new urban authorities, apparently indefinitely.
  We in Ilford are not lacking in a sense of duty to our neighbours. But there comes a point when I confess that what I believe to be the welfare of the nearly 200,000 people whose representation I share with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilford, South comes first in my consideration. It would be for the benefit not only of the people of Ilford tout for the people of Essex, too, that we should now part company and that Ilford should be given a life of its own.
  Mr. R. W. Sorensen: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give specific instances of severe injury to Ilford through the area being administered from Chelms-ford?
  Sir G. Hutchinson: The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me to criticise the administration of another authority. He would do well to wait and to allow me to get on with my speech.
  Mr. Sorensen: The hon. and learned Gentleman has done it by implication already.
  Sir G. Hutchinson: No one believes that if and when local government comes to be reorganised great urban communities like Ilford and many other places around London will not be entrusted with much wider responsibilities than they discharge now. The Boundary Commission contemplated that an authority of this size and character should be the education authority, the authority for public health, and for planning, welfare and many other services.
  Who can doubt that when the time comes these places will be called upon to discharge, as they are eager to do, these much wider responsibilities? What

  905
  is to happen in the meantime? These services, most of which have been recast since the war, are now being built up on a basis of county administration. I believe that it will be found that the administrative upheaval and disruption which will follow if these services are allowed to develop in the coming years on the basis of county administration will be infinitely greater, more serious and profound, when the time comes for these large authorities to assume wider responsibilities, than is likely to happen if Ilford and places like it are now constituted county boroughs and these new services are allowed to develop on a borough basis. That will be so even if it means that, later on, some modification in the status of these county boroughs, such as the Boundary Commission contemplated, should be considered necessary.
  I turn to the effect which the Bill is likely to have upon the administrative County of Essex. When the Luton Corporation Bill was before this House two years ago, great play was made with the allegation that if Luton was withdrawn from the County of Bedfordshire the county council would be unable to discharge its responsibilities. That argument does not apply to the County of Essex. A paper was circulated to this House a few weeks ago by the county council. I searched that paper to see whether it was asserted that the same fate would overtake Essex if Ilford were separated from the county. I could find no such allegation. It is not there for the excellent reason that if it were the county council would not be able to substantiate that claim. No one alleges that Essex will be seriously embarrassed if Ilford goes.
  Mr. Graeme Finlay: Has my hon. and learned Friend noticed paragraph 8 of the statement on behalf of the Essex County Council, which says:
  "The potential mutilation of the county from time to time on such a scale introduces a degree of uncertainty into the future of county administration which greatly adds to the complexity of making efficient and economical arrangements for the provision of county services. Moreover, if the size, population and resources of the administrative county were so greatly reduced the existing county administration would require complete reorganisation."
  Sir G. Hutchinson: What I said was that it was not alleged, as it was alleged on behalf of the Bedfordshire County
  906
  Council, that if Ilford were taken out of the Essex county administration the county council would not be able to discharge its responsibilities. If my hon. Friend will read through that document he will not find that allegation anywhere.
  Mr. Arthur Colegate: Surely the point is that if llford is to get its way, then there are four or five other urban districts in the county which will follow this precedent, and then there can be no question but that the finances and the administration of the county will be completely upset.
  Sir G. Hutchinson: It is said on behalf of the county council that there are six boroughs, including the Borough of llford, and two urban districts each of which have populations sufficiently large to justify them coming to Parliament and asking for county borough powers. I do not want to pursue this case on the basis of these authorities going out, but let us see what would happen if they did.
  The county would still be left with a population of over 700,000, nearly three quarters of a million. It would still be left with a rateable value exceeding £5 million, and it would in fact be bigger in population and better endowed with financial resources than 36 other counties, excluding the Welsh counties, excluding Rutland and the Soke of Peterborough, all of which are quite exceptional. Even if all these eight authorities are taken out of Essex, it is difficult to see why a county council, which still has a population of that size and a rateable value exceeding £5 million, will be embarrassed in the discharge of its functions. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having called attention to this matter.
  Mr. Colegate: Surely with a county which has built up administrative services on a population of nearly 2 million and with a rateable value of over £11 million, to more than halve the population and to halve the rateable value must throw those administrative services into confusion.
  Sir G. Hutchinson: My hon. Friend is arguing that these authorities are to continue to be part of the county council indefinitely. That is the point that I was seeking to deal with a moment ago. Of course, some time these big towns must be taken out of the county. Some time an

  907
  urban authority with a population of over 100,000 persons must be taken out of county government and given responsibility of its own. No one has ever argued to the contrary. The Boundary Commission certainly did not do so. What do the county council expect to happen to these great urban authorities? It cannot seriously be suggested that they will remain for ever a part of the county. Of course they will not. Some day they will be given wider responsibilities, which the Boundary Commissioners recommend that they should undertake. It is really unrealistic to argue that the county services must be organised upon the basis that these places will remain indefinitely part of the country area.
  There is another matter in this memorandum to which reference has been made and to which I desire to refer. It has been said—my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay) said it a moment ago—that if Ilford were to become a county borough there would be immediate and serious dislocation of many major county services. Let me deal with that point. There has not been located in Ilford one single county institution. There is not an aged persons' home, a welfare institution, a children's home, a residential nursery, or, indeed, an institution of that character. There is not, so far as I know, even a welfare officer's office in the Borough of Ilford. People have to walk five miles to Rom-ford for that. All these county institutions have, in fact, been located outside the Borough of Ilford. Ilford may have brought much into the county of Essex, but it is certain that it will take little out.
  I have endeavoured to avoid detaining the House with the details of this business. This is not the place, nor is it the time, to enter into such matters. They are proper matters to be considered in the Committee upstairs. No doubt, there are many matters of detail which have to be investigated. As I say, that is the task of the Committee upstairs, to which I now ask that this Bill may be sent.
  This House is tonight concerned with a major question of policy. Local government, if it is to be maintained in a lively, healthy condition, must retain its flexible, organic character, adapting
  908
  itself readily to the needs of changing generations. That is the way in which our system of local government was framed and was intended to operate.
  During these last 10 years we have sought to imprison local government and to take from it that flexibility which those who originally designed the system intended that it should have. We have, indeed, sacrificed the flexibility of local government to an ideal which may one day be realised. It has not been realised yet. Hitherto it has proved incapable of realisation.
  Some time we have got to unfreeze local government. Some time we have got to allow the local authorities, if we cannot reorganise them, at least to reorganise themselves. I ask the House tonight to take the first step in this direction and agree to give this Bill a Second Reading.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. Angus Maude: I beg to second the Motion.
  I am bound to say that to one who has taken part in a number of similar debates, the faces of those present begin to assume a certain familiarity, though I notice that on this occasion my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bedford (Captain Soames) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) have apparently paired and gone home.
  I noticed on the last occasion when I spoke in one of these debates, when I was moving the Second Reading of the Ealing Corporation Bill, that the hon. Members for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) and Tottenham (Mr. Messer) were the two leading opponents of the Measure which I was proposing, and I notice that their hostility to the upgrading of non-county boroughs extends from their own county of Middlesex even into Essex. I hope they will not press this hostility too far because, as I shall try to convince the House, the arguments which applied against the Ealing Bill do not apply against this Bill.
  When my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government spoke in the debate on the Ealing Corporation Bill, in the course of what everybody, whether they were supporters or opponents of the Bill, agreed to be a most fair and judicial summing-up of the argument, he concluded by saying that he himself proposed to vote against that Bill,

  909
  as indeed he subsequently did. The main burden of his argument was that the granting of county borough status to Ealing would mean a rush of similar applications, which, if complied with, would mean that Middlesex would virtually disappear and would become an authority concerned simply with sewage and county cricket. That, one has to admit in the case of Middlesex, is an argument with a certain amount of obvious truth in it, but in this instance, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) has said, I cannot conceive that the argument is anything like so strong.
  It is true of course, that there are other authorities in Essex which would consider Ilford as a precedent and which might make application for county borough status. Their case is nothing like as strong as that of llford, but, in any case, the effect on Essex would be immeasurably smaller than the effect on Middlesex if all the large non-county boroughs and urban districts elected to seek county borough status.
  But, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, the case of local government reform is now urgent and serious. No new county borough has been created in this country, I believe I am right in saying, since 1926, since when changes in population have been immense. More important still, the changes in the functions which various kinds of local government authorities are called upon to perform have been even greater. We have had not merely an immense extension of health and welfare services of all kinds, but we have had services on such a scale that in the case of a large and populous county authority the detailed administration of those services has become immensely difficult owing to the lack of direct contact between the authority at the centre and the citizens whose welfare is being served.
  It is clear that sooner or later Parliament will have to do something about this problem. The question is whether year after year and Parliamentary Session after Parliamentary Session we are to be fobbed off with the contention that this is too large a problem to be dealt with piecemeal. Over and over again, very large authorities such as Ilford have been told that they cannot have county borough status because we cannot afford to do
  910
  the job piecemeal. The result is that the job is not done at all.
  I shall be extremely surprised if, when my right hon. Friend replies, he is able to tell the House that there is even a likelihood of a measure of local government reform being agreed upon and a Bill introduced in the next Session of Parliament. How long are we to wait, and how great would be the disadvantages of allowing this first experimental step to take place in the direction of a more realistic distribution of functions between the local authorities of this country?
  I cannot help feeling that the encouragement which would be given to the people of llford, and the immense benefits which would accrue to students of local government and experts in local government were they given the chance to experiment on this scale with the redistribution of functions, would be very great. I earnestly hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading and thus take a great and historic step forward in the cause of local government reform.
  7.34 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Messer: I have listened very carefully and attentively to what both the hon. and learned Member for llford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) and the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude) have had to say because I wanted to hear in what way Ilford was suffering at the present time through not being a county borough. I was waiting to hear what the effect on Essex was going to be when, as is obvious if this Bill goes through, that county will be truncated to an extent that will leave it as an authority dealing merely with rural matters.
  Colonel J. H. Harrison: Quite right.
  Mr. Messer: When an hon. Member says that that is quite right, it is clear that he has not given much study to the problem of local government as such. I am by no means in favour of an indefinite continuation of the existence—
  Sir G. Hutchinson: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that even if Ilford becomes a county borough, the county of Essex will still have a population of 1,400,000.
  Mr. Messer: Yes, for a short time, but would it be possible for us to grant county borough status to Ilford and refuse it to Walthamstow, with a population of 121,000, to Dagenham, with 114,000, to Hornchurch, with 104,000, to Leyton, with 105,000 or to Romford, with 87,000? It is clear that what the House is deciding this evening is whether or not county government is to continue not merely in Essex, but in the rest of the country.
  Sir G. Hutchinson: Even if all these things happen, Essex will still be larger than Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Gloucestershire and larger than more than 30 other existing county councils.
  Mr. Messer: What the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying is that because anomalies exist we must make them worse. I should have thought that one with such an experience of the law as he has would have presented his case in a rather more convincing way than that. That because evil is done it can continue to be done is not the type of argument that will convince waverers in this House on the course that should be taken when dealing with what everybody agrees is at the present time a very vexed question.
  I hope it will not be considered, as the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North seemed to think, that those of us who opposed a similar Bill on a previous occasion are wedded to county government as it is. Who for one moment is going to support the continued existence of a county such as Rutland or the Soke of Peterborough? Who is going to support the continued existence of a county borough like Canterbury, with a population of 24,000? No one, of course.
  Colonel J, H. Harrison: Canterbury was specifically excluded from the 1888 Act because of its historic position.
  Mr. Messer: I do not know what that is supposed to prove, except that for historical reasons we should continue to have that which cannot function in the way it should. Very clearly we have to see in what way the services which should be administered by local government can be the more efficiently administered. That is the question we have to decide, and it cannot be decided in just one of the two ways suggested in some quarters, that of leaving things alone or of having a complete revolution in local government.
  912
  There is a third possibility. I should be the first to admit, and to argue as strongly as reason will allow, that there are many functions which are the responsibility of local government and which should be administered as close to the people as possible. It can be argued there are some services which are better because they are administered by a large authority: the engineering services— drainage, highways and bridges—the provision of gas, water and electricity.
  I would not put them under nationalised boards. I am beginning to suspect nationalised boards. It is difficult to make any impression on a board. They are so unresponsive to the people, and local government must be responsive to the people it serves. Local government must be local. Remoteness of control of the human services is not a bad thing because it is remote, but because it cannot possibly have the required susceptibility. It can have the efficiency, but in these great human services of health, welfare and education there is something more wanted than just mechanical efficiency.
  It is not what we do that matters but the way in which we do it. That which is done by those closer to the people can be calculated to give the greatest degree of satisfaction. If that appears to be contradictory to the stand that I am taking, let me hasten to make myself plain. There are services for which we have worked long years to improve. We have wanted social services to be expanded, but when we have expanded them we have recognised that the unit of administration has not been of a character which would enable the work to be done efficiently.
  We could not have had the 1944 Education Act unless we had provided the governing body with a population big enough to divide up the sections of the child population into groups of sufficient size to enable the specialities which were required to be provided. Modern secondary education, technical education and further education require administrative units large enough to be able to provide the necessary facilities. The consequence of having to adapt the machinery of local government to the functions it had to perform compelled us to do things which we felt to be not entirely good.

  913
  I shall not be misunderstood it I claim my own constituency to be the most progressive local authority in the country. The borough council did the work which the county council should have done in providing special schools. In my local authority area we have a school for the deaf wherein we take pupils from other parts of the county. But it was put up by the borough and not by the county. The borough was able to recognise a need and to meet it.
  What can we do if, as is suggested, any revolutionary change is impossible? Is there nothing we can do? I think there is. I think we can do it without the complications which will result from giving county borough status. Both the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North and the hon. Member for Ealing, South skated very lightly over the additional complications which will result from giving county status to one non-county borough. Shall we have Ilford County Borough and nothing more?
  Shall we not be creating a new set of officials entirely outside local government? For so soon as we create Ilford County Borough we shall have Ilford Executive Council to administer the general practitioner section of the National Health Service. We are not just giving a higher status to Ilford; we shall be creating Ilford Executive Council.
  Under the National Health Service Act, if Ilford becomes a county borough it will become a local health authority and the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board will have an additional authority with which it will have to negotiate. At the moment it negotiates with the Essex County Council for the whole of the administrative county of Essex. If Ilford becomes a county borough it will have to negotiate—
  Sir G. Hutchinson: Is there any embarrassment in negotiating with West Ham, East Ham or Southend?
  Mr. Messer: The hon. and learned Member tries by his interruptions to repair his omissions, but all he does is to show up his case in a worse light. At the present time the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board negotiates separately with Southend, with East Ham and with West Ham and separately with the Essex County Council. Now the
  914
  hon. and learned Member says, "Well, Ilford is only one more." I repeat, it will not be one more, for others will follow, and we shall find that administration will be concerned with the various county boroughs within the geographical county of Essex.
  These negotiations are important. A principle exists in the National Health Service which I think is very bad. It is the principle of the division of responsibility from authority. I try to do my thinking on the basis of seeking a principle and building my policy upon it. When we divide responsibility from authority we create confusion.
  Let me illustrate what I mean. The regional hospital board is the authority for dealing with patients who go into hospitals. The local health authority is the body which deals with the ambulances used to take them there. The local health authority provides and pays for the ambulances. One body provides and pays for the service and another body uses it. That is a bad thing, for those who provide the service cannot control it, and those who use it have no incentive to economise. It is for those reasons a bad thing. If Ilford becomes a county borough it will add to the problem, because Ilford will have its own ambulances, which are now centralised in the county. There will be another wheel to the coach.
  Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: But we always did have them until you took them away from us.
  Mr. Messer: I never took them away.
  Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Member voted for it.
  Mr. Messer: I always disagreed about the separation of the ambulance service from the hospital service. It has always seemed to me a clear case that ambulances should constitute a hospital service based upon, provided by and used by the hospitals. Indeed, I spend a lot of my time, perhaps too much, speaking up and down the country on the unification of the health services. I believe in that unification. I do not believe in fragmentation, but that is what will happen.
  Hon. Members will be saying that I started with a reference to a third possibility but that I have not told the House what it is. The fact that they have not

  915
  interrupted me so far to ask me about that possibility must be a tribute to my ability to face the consequences of my own rashness. There is an alternative. I think that local government should be close to the people, so I have an obligation to reconcile that belief, with my claim that there should be an authority large enough to administer the services for a very large number of people. I want to meet that obligation.
  I would give to the county council a particular authority for services that require to be administered by the large authority, and I would give to the minor authority the right of claiming complete delegation of those services which they consider they are capable of administering. If that were not granted I would give to the Minister the right to determine whether or not it should be granted.
  Squadron Leader Cooper: Does complete delegation in this case also give complete financial responsibility, because that is the crux of the problem?
  Mr. Messer: The one already goes with the other in many cases. That is by no means a difficult problem to overcome. It has been said that if county borough status were granted to IIford it would make no difference to Word's finances. Will IIford have a lower rate than those of other districts in Essex because of this? If it will not, there is not very much justification, on the grounds of economy, for Ilford becoming a county borough. But if Ilford will have a lower rate—and incidentally at present its rate is the lowest but one of all authorities of over 100,000 population in Essex— then, if the equalisation grant is to compensate Essex, as it is supposed to do, who will pay it? It must come from somewhere.
  This Bill means that Ilford has recognised itself as a grown-up son in the family. It believes itself strong enough to be able to pay for all it wants itself, so it wants to leave the home and set up on its own account and is no longer willing to share the overheads which must be shared by those who are left. It means that those who, by virtue of the joint financial responsibility of all, have managed to share the burden in the past, will now have an unfair burden placed upon them. A succession of grown-up
  916
  members of the family will leave, making the position of Essex worse and worse. I am so much in earnest about the reorganisation of local government that I am tempted to vote for this Bill, because I am certain that if this Bill goes through that reorganisation must come about.
  Mr. Maude: That is a very good idea.
  Mr. Messer: It would be a good idea if I were the type of politician who went in for expediency, but I am of the type who has a principle. Being an honest politician I am bound to vote against the Bill, because I consider that it proposes the wrong way to do the job.
  We have had many debates in this House on the reorganisation of local government. It seems to me that it must come, or else a dread alternative awaits us. We can see it happening. Because we have not had the courage to deal with the problem, we have seen services that ought to have been administered by local authorities going to the central Government. I do not like that. I do not think that Whitehall knows enough about the people to be able to administer those services as well as the people on the spot can administer them. I do not like this drift from local administration to Whitehall with all its good intentions. Whitehall is not the machine for the carrying out of that administration. It was never intended to do it. It is a job for the local authorities.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government made a speech at the end of last year to the Association of Municipal Corporations, in which he talked about the reform of local government. Was it thought that local government was like a drunkard or a criminal who needed reform, he asked; was it inefficient? I ask that. Has county government in Essex been efficient? We should look at the wonderful technical college that they have at Walthamstow and some of the examples of the work that they have done in secondary education. Essex County Council have nothing to be ashamed of in the services which they have rendered to the people. I hope that the Bill will be overwhelmingly rejected.
  7.59 p.m.
  Mr. C. J. M. Alport: I and all other hon. Members of this House admire, and have always admired, the integrity of the hon. Member for

  917
  Tottenham (Mr. Messer). But I do not think that we can admire the logic of his argument tonight. He started off by saying that local government should be local, that it ought to be in intimate contact with the people with which it had to deal and be as close as possible to those living in the area—with this we agree.
  But then his argument led him to conclude that the whole pattern of local government reform should be hitched to the existing pattern of a great national organisation such as the Health Service system as it exists at present. He asked, on the other hand, how one could have a county borough in Ilford with an additional health committee there, when in fact the total number of health committees attached to county boroughs at the present moment was too large. Would not the right conclusion be perhaps that the Health Service itself requires reform?
  I propose to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) on this Bill for two reasons. The first is because in 1950 I voted for the Ilford Bill. I do not suppose for one moment that there is any virtue in political consistency, but the reason which led me to support it then still obtains. That reason is that I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that local government reform is very long overdue. On that occasion I voted as a protest against the fact that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) had at that time recently abolished the Local Boundary Commission and had done nothing to carry the matter further. I have been dismayed that, in spite of the immense difficulties which I realise exist, no step towards tackling this problem has been taken during the last 18 months. I may be wrong about that, and am open to correction.
  I feel it is most important that if we are to get the economical administration of our local authorities this reform should be undertaken. We can talk in county councils, borough councils or rural district councils about economy, but at root economy depends upon producing a more efficient and more sensible and logical pattern of local government for the country as a whole. That is one of the reasons why I shall support this Bill. I do so—
  918
  if I may put it this way—as a gentle nudge to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, so that not only will he go down in history as a great Minister of Housing, but also as a great Minister of Local Government by tackling this task within the immediate future.
  The second reason why I support the Bill is perhaps a more local reason. I do not know whether you have ever been to Essex, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but as far as I am concerned you start at Liverpool Street. For the first 15 or 20 miles you go through a town which is very similar to any borough of London going out of this City of London in any other direction. There are cemeteries, greyhound racing stadiums, great railway sidings and factories, and street after street after street of houses. In fact, until you get somewhere near Brentwood Rise you would never know that you had left London at all.
  The folk who live in those streets are honest, honourable hard-working folk, but their eyes and their interests are all directed towards this great City of London. They are different from the interests, ideas and points of view of those who live beyond Brentwood Rise out in the country districts of Eastern Essex. If you get past that point you quickly realise that you are in a different county.
  In a month or two's time the fields on either side of the railway line will be a most beautiful sight. They always remind me of a rainbow, with great splashes of colour—vermilion, orange, mauve and blue. In those June and July months it is as if the rainbow ended in those fields of Essex. If only my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture would give us a decent price for our seed there might even be a crock of gold at the bottom of those rainbows. Going further, the country rolls up from the sea; country which is old and quiet and very remote from this great city.
  This city is not only the City of Westminster and the City of London, but also a great conglomeration of population and activity, like Ilford and Romford. The hon. Member for Tottenham asked, "What does Ilford suffer from being in the county of Essex?" We have a different point of view. We ask, "What does the County of Essex suffer from having Ilford in it?" because we feel—

  919
  and we have great justification for it— that the centre of gravity of our county council is not really at Chelmsford, which is in the country district of Essex, but is in that great urban population of Ilford, Romford, Dagenham, Leyton, and all the others. That is the direction in which the county council looks. That is the part of the county from which the majority of Members, quite rightly, come. They are Members whose interests, work and outlook are different from those who come from the country districts.
  What we want, and what we have sought of for many years, is the opportunity to get our county split in half. We have tried, but it is not easy. After all, the county next door, Suffolk, is divided in two. Why not, therefore, a division of Essex between urban Essex on the one side and rural Essex on the other?
  Mr. Sorensen: Shocking.
  Mr. Alport: It may be shocking to the hon. Gentleman, but I am thinking of it from the point of view of our part of Essex. Surely we are entitled to a point of view as much as anybody else. The hon. Gentleman who says it is shocking represents the urban part of Essex. They do not want to lose anything, but we want to go. Why should we not have our point of view and our interests supported?
  The interesting thing is that it has not been Essex Members who have been speaking against this but Middlesex Members. Cannot we in our county have our point of view? Cannot we, who agree entirely with our urban friends on this matter, be allowed to have our way? I agree that if Ilford obtains county borough status Romford, Walthamstow, Dagenham, Hornchurch and Leyton will follow. They will all be able to look after their own interests in their own way, leaving us, away in our remote rural end of Essex, to look after ourselves. We may not be quite as rich as we were, but I gather that through the equalisation fund we may be able to make up for some of the disadvantages, and we will find our interests better served.
  I have nothing against the county council. The county council does its best. But if the great bias of opinion is towards a part of the county which has
  920
  so little relationship with us, the folk from which so often only pass through our county at high speed along the London road to get to Clacton as quickly as they can, how can they understand the difficulties of the little villages and hamlets in the valleys that lie up from the sea? They do not even live in the same climate as we do. We have this east wind which comes in from the coast —they say from the steppes of Russia. They talk about a "cold war." Well, Russia has been fighting a cold war against us with the east wind for many centuries past. Yes, we have rather a different point of view. We want the great urban areas to get what they want, and we want to see Romford, Walthamstow, Dagenham, Hornchurch, Leyton and Ilford get county borough status. And good riddance to the lot of them.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. Hubert Ashton: My hon. Friend the Member for the very ancient Borough of Colchester (Mr. Alport) has made a speech in which he has given his general views on local government reform. I am glad he has no basic complaint against the county council as such. I must confess that as an ex-vice-chairman of the county I used to enjoy very much visiting rural areas and the great Borough of Chelmsford.
  Perhaps we can get back to the Bill. This Bill has as its sole object the constitution of the Borough of Ilford as a county borough. I should like to return to the fairly detailed arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson). We all listen with much interest to what he has to say on matters concerned with local government. At this time we all get a great many papers attempting to persuade us to vote this way or the other. Among the many papers I have received, on 3rd March I had a document signed by my hon. and learned Friend and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper), which contained this rather remarkable sentence:
  "The Bill will not in any way affect any adjoining authority."
  The hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North has suggested that it obviously will affect the county council, but that it will be able to exist even though it is truncated in this way. Let me

  921
  point out to him that these county councils have been growing in different ways since 1888. It is perfectly true that the administrative County of Essex is one of the largest today, and that others have not grown so fast. Take from that human body, if I may so describe it, what I am sure I am right in describing as unquestionably the biggest, brightest jewel of our crown, Ilford, have this ripped widely from our very vitals, then I ask my hon, and learned Friend, is that to have no effect on our constitution? Of course it is.
  I think it is just as well to remember the problem with which we are trying to deal. What is the Essex administrative county today? It consists of some 960,000 acres, a population of 1,600,000 people, and a rateable value of approximately £11,700,000. There are 43 authorities on whom the county council precepts. It is true that Ilford is the largest and has the greatest rateable value. We shall agree about that. It has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House already that there are seven other authorities who would be entitled to press by Private Bill for county borough powers, and unquestionably they will do so. My hon. Friends here hope they will. That will happen not only in the County of Essex but all over the country. Is that the way we wish to see local government reformed? I agree with my hon. Friends, and with my hon. Friends on the other side of the House, too. that local government reform is badly needed, but I suggest that this is not the way to proceed.
  If the seven other authorities left us they would take only a tenth of our acreage; they would, however, take more than half our population, and more than half our rateable value. There would be quite a fair part left. To suggest that an entity which has gradually built itself up since 1888 should be treated in this way, to suggest that this body which has grown to stand firmly on its own legs should thus be so mutilated, is ruthless indeed. The trunk of the body, perhaps, would be left, but part of the body, and the life blood, would be taken away. Further the county would be bereft of the advice of Ilford Councillors at County Hall.
  Sir G. Hutchinson: The life blood has not been there since 1888, but it has all
  922
  grown up in the last 20 or 30 years, since the end of the First World War.
  Mr. Ashton: I quite agree that that development has taken place in the last 20 or 30 years. My hon. and learned Friend and I have grown up to about very much the same age during the same time. My hon. and learned Friend may have grown a bit bigger than I in one way, and I may have grown bigger than he in another, but to lop off from the major, larger body half its soul and substance must reduce it. A dwarf or a pygmy remain entities. I suggest that there is no substance in my hon. and learned Friend's arguments in that direction.
  Now I come to certain details. One always listens with great interest to what the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) says on matters of health. He has spent a lifetime in that particular public work, and I am sure that we should pay tribute to what he has done. I do not want to go into the details that he did in this matter, but I am certain that, as he said, these new methods for health and so on have been built up on a county basis. Even in the case of health administration, which, I think myself, should have a more local atmosphere, there would be some effect in the County of Essex as a whole
  As to education, my hon. Friends know perfectly well that, as a result of the 1944 Education Act, the whole of the administration of education in our county has been built up on a county basis. There are thousands of children in Ilford who go to schools outside Ilford. There are, conversely, thousands of children outside Ilford who go into Ilford for their education. All that would require reorganisation. These proposals must have some effect on that, although I believe that in the case of education and health, as, indeed, the Boundary Commission suggested, the powers should go back more locally.
  I come now to planning. That is another thing. My hon. and learned Friend said that at no time had anybody said Ilford should not have county borough status. County borough status includes control of the fire brigade, the children, everything. I agree with the Local Boundary Commission and others that planning should be on a wider basis

  923
  than that of a county borough of small acreage. I would remind my hon. Friend that since the war and in recent years there has been a great expansion of Essex. The population has increased enormously, and the increase is still going on. I seriously submit that this certainly is a function of local government that should remain in the hands of the county council authorities.
  Mention has been made of the fire brigade. This service also has been built up over the same years. My hon. and learned Friend said there was no single major county function in Ilford.
  Sir G. Hutchinson: Institution.
  Mr. Ashton: Yes, institution. I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend regards the fire brigade divisional headquarters as an institution, but whatever it may be it is quite an important thing in Ilford, because it deals there with no fewer than eight other districts with a population of more than 900,000 people. Here, obviously, is a service in which some major reorganisation would be necessary were these proposals agreed to. Then there are the ambulance services, which are controlled by wireless. No doubt, some arrangement could be made about them, but I am suggesting to the House that they should not be made just as a ship passes in the night.
  I believe the value of the services controlled by the county has been underlined during the time of the floods. I pay full tribute to what was done by all the local authorities, but the fact that some of these major functions were in the hands of the county council was proved to be of great advantage at that time. Naturally, we do not always have or want to have floods and wars with us. In my lifetime we have had far too many of those things. However, the advantage of having services controlled at county level has been proved lately, I submit.
  Then there is another matter of vital importance which was touched on by my hon. and learned Friend. He referred to the Local Boundary Commission's Report of 1947. He said that, so far as Ilford was concerned, it led to nothing. Those were the words he used. I think, however, he will agree that there was a specific recom-
  924
  mendation in that Report that Ilford was a part of the huge London area. Everybody agrees with that. My hon. and learned Friend agrees with that. It was recommended in the Report that Ilford should not be dealt with except in conjunction with the area of which it is a part. In Essex, Ilford is facile princeps. In the huge conurbation of London I do not know that it would be quite the same.
  My hon. and learned Friend said there was no possibility whatever of agreement among the local authorities. It is an extremely difficult problem. I should like at this juncture to quote a speech made by my right hon. Friend, oddly enough, exactly a year ago, on 26th March, 1952. He then said:
  "Why, then, it is argued, take this premature action? Why introduce new and unnecessary difficulties, and why do so—although this argument has not been deployed tonight, it has certainly been present in my mind—at this present time, when it is believed that negotiations are taking place, and not altogether without prospect of success, between the various groups of local authority interests with a view to reaching some agreed solution?" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 518.]
  It is in the knowledge of the House as a whole that a quite considerable measure of agreement has been reached in this matter after long negotiations by the County Councils Association, the Urban District Councils Association, the Rural District Councils Association, and the National Association of Parish Councils. My hon. Friend smiles. I know it is very difficult to get agreement, but, after all, here are what may be serious proposals, and should we at this juncture give to a Bill of this nature a Second Reading which would seem to imply that there was a prima facie case and justification for the reform of local government on this basis?
  Mr. David Jones: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the whole series of local government associations. Will he tell us what is the view of the Association of Municipal Corporations?
  Mr. Ashton: My association has been with the County Councils' Association. The A.M.C. have, I think, been sitting on the side lines. I remember when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilford, South was dealing with the Ealing Corporation Bill. On 26th March, 1952, he said that the County Councils' Association were not going to come to an agree-

  925
  ment with anybody. I might suggest now that they have come to such an agreement with three other authorities, and the other people, the A.M.C., as always, are rather like mother's darling boy who was the only one in step.
  Squadron Leader Cooper: It is true that the County Councils' Association have come to some agreement with all these smaller organisations but have failed to come to any agreement whatsoever with the boroughs, who are the people that really matter.
  Mr. Ashton: This is a very vexed problem, and I wonder whether it was advisable to bring it forward at such short notice. The last thing that I want to stir up are differences between the boroughs and the other authorities. I am sincere in saying that. I am sure that we realise that Members on both sides of the House are getting a little restive on this matter. I believe, in looking at the voting records, that it may be that they have changed their minds. It may be that they will vote today against their better judgment.
  May I go back to quote from a speech made by my right hon. Friend on 26th March, 1952, when he said that if this Bill was passed he could not really pretend that a large number of other Bills would not rapidly follow? I think that may be so. I think that is accepted on both sides of the House. I myself have very considerable sympathy with the aspirations of the Borough of Ilford. I fully appreciate the disappointment which they have had over a number of years.
  I have had some experience of two-tier Government in the huge administrative county of Essex, and I agree with the remark made—I am not sure by whom— that it is very difficult in such matters because of the distance and geography to have real personal contacts. I tried for three years when I was vice-chairman of the county council, and I found it very difficult to make personal contacts with the mayors and chairmen of the 43 councils in our area. I speak only for myself in expressing these views.
  I am sure that there would be grave difficulties in regard to finance, and I think that it is quite untrue to suggest, as it has been suggested, that if these changes took place it does not matter
  926
  what happens to the rateable value because the Exchequer equalisation grant is going to take care of that. It has been in operation for five years, its existence is extremely uncertain and its future is under urgent investigation. I think that to argue on that basis is quite wrong. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take up the same line as he did in his earlier speech. I think that the proposals to which I have referred— this agreement between four of the authorities which will be published on the 28th March—in 48 hours' time—are worthy of the fullest consideration.
  First and last, however, every single thing depends on finance. Local government finance is much in the eye at the present time. Any alterations of functions or boundaries depend eventually on this matter of finance. In the meantime, in asking hon. Members to agree that the arguments against this piece-meal reform of local government are quite overwhelming, I feel that it is essential that we should have some measure of local government reform as soon as possible, and in that direction I would urge, with what strength I can, that a committee to examine the whole of local government finance should be set up forthwith.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I wish to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton). I call him my hon. Friend in this respect because we are thinking alike on a very important problem. This is a very much wider problem than the Ilford Corporation Bill. Everyone recognises that if this Bill is accepted it must be the forerunner of other similar Bills. Reference has been made to Essex, but what about the other authorities elsewhere which have a population of more than 75,000. After all, 75,000 is the figure in the Act at the present time. If we are going to accede the case, taking this as a precedent, that all those towns of more than 75,000 population can bring forward a Bill, what would be the end of it?
  Perhaps we should leave the Minister to deal with that as his problem but it is obviously one which he would not require to have on his plate at this particular moment. This is a matter of very wide public importance outside the boundaries of Ilford or Essex.
  Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Gentleman quotes the figure of 75,000 and indicates that a lot of authorities will come forward. It was the Labour Government which inserted the provision of 75,000 in the Act itself in order to promote this very idea among local authorities.
  Mr. Pargiter: That was not the intention at all. The figure of 75,000 was put in as an alternative and purely as a temporary expedient because it was thought that the reform of local government would proceed more rapidly than it has done. In fact the figure of 75,000 may well have had the tendency of taking more services away from local government rather than of providing them with a greater number of services for a number of smaller authorities.
  I want to return to the argument about the general application of this figure and the importance of it; and why, if we are concerned with the future of local government as a whole, we should reject this Bill this evening. I repeat that what it seeks cannot possibly be limited to Ilford or the local authorities in Essex; it is bound to spread and widen. And notwithstanding the resolution passed in this House with regard to Middlesex, a number of authorities in Middlesex may seek the opportunity to become county boroughs, as they would be justified in doing.
  The argument which has been deployed is that if we accept the Second Reading of the Bill it will hurry the Minister to do something about local government reform. I might be tempted to support the argument, but that is not necessarily the best way to get local government reform. It has been generally accepted that if we can get local government reorganisation largely by agreement, so that it does not become a political issue, that is the obvious thing to do. We ought to try to avoid party politics and to be concerned with determining the proper structure for local government throughout the country. To accept the Bill on the basis that it will prod the Minister to do something will not help.
  As a representative of the County Councils' Association, I have been a member of the body which has been considering local government reform, and its signatories are the parties to the agreement between the four associations to
  928
  which the hon. Member for Chelmsford has referred. The A.M.C. are not parties to it. At the appropriate time—this is not the appropriate time—I shall have some strictures to pass in respect of the activities of the A.M.C.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: What about the County Councils' Association?
  Mr. Pargiter: The A.M.C. have not been prepared seriously to come to terms to get agreement on local government, and they have also done their best to obstruct anyone else seeking to get agreement.
  Sir G. Hutchinson: The hon. Member is making a serious charge against a responsible body. Surely he is aware that the reason they are not parties to the agreement is that they profoundly disagree with everything the agreement contains.
  Mr. Pargiter: Without prejudicing what has been taking place, I cannot very well reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I merely say that at the appropriate time I shall have some strictures to pass on their activities; I have been closely associated with this matter and have been able to watch their manœuvres.
  It is unfortunate that we are discussing the Bill at this juncture; the nature of the recommendations coming to the associations will be made public on 28th March, and this is now 26th March. This week-end the recommendations will be in the hands of every Member of Parliament, who will then be able to see what a very large measure of agreement upon a two-tier structure of local government has been reached by the associations concerned. Not only has general agreement been reached, but also very considerable thought has been given to the means by which the proposals can be carried out.
  The Minister will to some extent be aware of the nature of the negotiations which have been going on, and I hope he will be able to say that this matter has gone so far that this is certainly not the time at which to adopt this Private Bill, and that there is a hope that, because a number of associations have come together and reached agreement, another body may think it desirable at last to come to some sort of terms, on the basis of a reasonable compromise, on

  929
  an effective and efficient form of local government. If we can do that, we shall achieve some progress towards the objective that we all have in mind.
  Sir G. Hutchinson: The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to the agreement and drawing inferences from it. He really should not do that unless he is prepared to state its contents.
  Mr. Pargiter: Knowing the activities to which I have referred, and which I shall be happy to divulge at the appropriate time, I can understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman is suffering from some undue sensitivity about this.
  Squadron Leader Cooper Squadron Leader Cooper rose—
  Mr. Pargiter: We cannot go on like this. I cannot give way again. It is a fact that a very large measure of agreement has been reached between very important bodies representing local government, and because of the nature of that agreement, it is highly undesirable that any precipitate step should be taken with regard to one authority at present.
  Nothing has been said tonight to show that Essex, as a county authority, has failed to fulfil its duties towards Ilford, and that Ilford has not had a full share of the services provided by the county authority. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) made the extraordinary statement that there is a greater affinity between rural Essex and Russia than there is between that part and Ilford. If that is the best argument that he can put forward for Ilford to receive county borough powers, it is not a very strong argument at this stage.
  I hope that the House will reject the Bill by a very large majority, and I hope the Minister will do his best to encourage the associations in their endeavours to secure agreement upon local government reorganisation. It is highly desirable that, if possible, reform should come by agreement. The only way to achieve it is to keep it free from party politics, and it is remarkable how many people of different views can come to an agreement about the structure of local government if politics are not allowed to intervene. I urge the Minister to pursue the matter in that way and to say that, from the Government's point of view, the present proposal is a most inconvenient one.
  930
  I should very much prefer the associations to reach agreement, because this might give the right hon. Gentleman a lead about the future of our local government legislation.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. John Hay: I must say at the outset that I shall not be able to vote in favour of this Bill tonight. Lest any hon. Member thinks that I am not persuaded of the justice of Ilford's case, let me hasten to add that before I expected that we should have a debate on this Bill tonight, I took the precaution of pairing with the hon. Member for Abertillery (Rev. L1. Williams), who has disappeared to South Wales, and unfortunately I shall be unable to go into the Lobby in favour of this Bill. But if any words of mine help any hon. Members to vote for the Bill, I shall be delighted.
  This is an interesting subject which we have been debating today, and I was amused to hear that it was exactly a year ago that we had a similar debate upon the proposal to make Ealing a county borough. I think hon. Members enjoy debates of this kind because one finds oneself with the most unlikely adversaries. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) and others on this side of the House usually get on very well with me, but now we find ourselves in complete disagreement. On the other hand hon. Members opposite, such as the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), are those with whom it would be most unlikely for me to agree on any political subject, but we are together on this particular subject. Therefore, this debate is interesting and most stimulating.
  I approach this subject from only one standpoint, which is quite a simple one —what is really best for the particular situation which is before us? What is really best for good government in the County of Essex and the Borough of Ilford. I disagreed with one hon. Member who spoke to me earlier tonight and said that because one represented one particular kind of constituency in this House then one's loyalty should automatically be tied. One ought to visualise the situation, listen to the arguments produced on the information provided, and come to a conclusion. I repeat that the

  931
  only standpoint should be what is the best in the circumstances.
  My own feeling is that on to such an extremely complicated subject we should make a realistic approach if we can. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), to whom we listen with the greatest attention on these subjects, came nearest to it when he emphasised the necessity of individual local government. Although the hon. Gentleman prayed that argument in aid of his general case against the Bill, I must say that listening to him I felt in great sympathy with what he said.
  It is precisely what he asked us to consider that Ilford is asking for, just as Ealing did and as Luton did, namely, the right to run their own local government close to the people whom they represent and divorced from remote control— whether it be good control or bad control I do not argue—of others. We must realise that local government, if it is to be local, must move with the times and that this is not a static organism. The people will not wait indefinitely for Ministers and Governments to make up their minds. There is some likelihood that a very wide measure of agreement has been reached between certain of the local government associations.
  Mr. Colegate: All, except for one.
  Mr. Hay: As my hon. Friend says, all except one. But there cannot be agreement between a number of parties if one of them does not agree. We are told by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) their proposals will be brought forward and published in a couple of days' time, but one important group will be standing out, not prepared to agree with the others. That, I think, makes nonsense of the argument that we should defer this decision and shuffle it off for another period until some nebulous agreement is reached in the future.
  Local government ought not to be fossilised into a permanent pattern. Parliament has provided machinery for adjustment from time to time in local government. Why should it not be used? There is a very good case for its use. The objection is raised that the time is not ripe, and that we should deal with the whole subject of local government under one umbrella and at one time
  932
  because to deal with it piecemeal is unwise. It is often said also that if we give an opportunity to Ilford to be a county borough other authorities from all over the country will come here, too. That is a legitimate objection, but does it not show that urgent action is needed to deal with the structure of local government? If that situation is feared by hon. Members, is not that a very compelling argument for the matter receiving the most urgent attention of the Government?
  The second argument, put forward but not developed at any great length, is that the services which Essex provides for the whole county will be grievously disrupted if Ilford is given county borough status. We are told that we shall "truncate" the County of Essex if we take Ilford out of it. There may be two opinions about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) expressed a very entertaining opinion just now. That is not the sole factor upon which we should decide this matter. There may be disturbance and that is not to be denied, but which is better? Are we to leave Ilford, for example, to go on indefinitely becoming more and more unhappy at its inability to control its own affairs locally, for fear of some temporary dislocation—I am certain that it would be only temporary—in the county services?
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) pointed out that if we take Ilford from the county there will still be a very large county left, quite capable of providing services for its people. It would certainly be a county much larger than the county, part of which I have the pleasure and honour to represent, the County of Oxford.
  Hon. Members should think carefully about this subject before they decide what they will do tonight. They should look at it divorced from loyalties to constituencies, the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations. Let us try to decide the matter according to what is best not only for Ilford and the County of Essex but for local government in this country. We can take a decisive step tonight in creating an entirely new pattern of local government, which the country needs. I hope that we can come

  933
  to a decision by a realistic approach to something that we need and will serve the country best. The hon. Member for Tottenham said that Uford had grown up. That is true. Ilford is a big boy now. It ought to have the key to the front door, and that is what the promoters of the Bill are asking for. I shall certainly support the Second Reading, although, as I have said, I cannot cast a vote for it.
  8.44 p.m.
  Mr. R. W. Sorensen: I shall not detain the House for long, because anything I say or other hon. Members may say will be largely repetition. I express my regret that a kind of class war has broken out on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) said that he wished to rouse the rural populations to a massive attack against urban populations. I trust that hon. Members opposite will do their utmost to bring about a wiser conception of the relationship between the urban and rural population of this country.
  I am the first to speak from this side of the House tonight as an Essex man, representing the constituency of Leyton—
  Mr. Ashton: Not the first one.
  Mr. Sorensen: I said from this side. I appreciate the motives which animate the hon. Gentlemen who are pressing for this Bill. I understand that they want to add to the status and dignity of the town they represent, and I bear no ill will towards them, neither does my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton), I am sure. So it is in no sense of chagrin or pique that I oppose the Bill.
  I recognise that a substantial case can be made out for Ilford, but it is unfair to infer that the services now being given in Ilford from Chelmsford or from the county council are in any sense inefficient. That is not the case. That is why I ask specifically for any serious evidence of lack of service or of inefficiency on the part of the county services. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) said he would not criticise another municipal body, he did so by implication only a short time before. It is legitimate to ask, therefore, whether Ilford has suffered materially by having certain services provided by the county council.
  934
  I agree with those hon. Members who have urged that local government should be truly local, but we need balance in this matter. County councillors are as much local government as parish councillors, and instead of getting this absurd and inconsistent position of trying to score off different kinds of local government, we should appreciate that just as the parish council has a certain function which cannot be performed by the municipal borough or county council, equally the county council has certain functions that cannot be performed by others.
  I agree that there must be a realignment of those bodies, but it does not mean that we must attempt to do it by inferring that some of those bodies are useless or obstructive. We must have a survey at an early date to see what kind of adaptations and adjustments can be effected. It would be unfair for anyone to suggest that the municipal boroughs in Essex which have some of their services provided by the county council have suffered. For instance, I cannot see how they have suffered as regards the ambulance service. On the contrary, anyone who knows these municipal boroughs will agree that, as far as the ambulance and fire services are concerned, they have excellent ones which would not be improved by transfer from county control to local control in this narrow sense.
  That does not mean to say, however, that I do not believe there should be county borough status for Ilford or for other boroughs. On the grounds of psychology and of local dignity much can be said for it, but one does not want to overstate the case. Equally we must appreciate that if Ilford were to withdraw at this juncture from the county, with the inevitable consequence that other boroughs would seek to do the same thing, we should have an Essex left which might correspond to the vision of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, but which would have a dire effect on the people in that rural part of Essex.
  I do not want this division between urban and rural minds. I want to bring them together. We urban people need a great deal of the thought and experience of our rural brothers and sisters. But the reverse is true also, and any

  935
  attempt to try to divide two sections of our population in that way is a disservice to the country as well as to any form of local government.
  Of this I am certain. If prematurely and without proper thought in regard to both the material and the administrative sides, we were to promote any Measure which left Essex merely a rural entity, it would indeed suffer. For that reason alone, I suggest that in any consideration of the reorganisation of local government we should not lose sight of the fact that we do not want to leave a reconstructed form of local government in such a way as would leave great rural areas completely dissociated from urban areas.
  I agree with all other hon. Members who have spoken that local government reorganisation is long overdue. The Minister may be able to make some observations tonight, but if the Bill were passed with the probability of scores of others being presented in the very near future, I am sure he would be horrified at that particular method of getting what everybody feels is urgently necessary.
  It was mentioned earlier that no new county borough has been created since 1926. That is a long interval. Certainly, we do not want to break that long period of inactivity by this method. I hope the Minister and the Government are left with the very real impression that, although local government reorganisation is an urgent necessity, this is not the way to get it, and that, therefore, the psychological demand being made tonight by Ilford, whilst we must respect it, is one that my own borough, which is quite as important as Ilford, could also make. Neighbouring Walthamstow and other boroughs could well do the same. If, therefore, Ilford is to have this concession, it is certain that other nearby boroughs, just as important as Ilford, would make the same demand.
  For those reasons. I ask the House to reject the Bill and to accept the assurance of the hon. and learned Member who brought it forward that he did so in the interests of the town which he has the honour to represent, but at the same time pointing out that the honour he wants is one that other boroughs want also and that the way to get it is not the way that he proposes.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. Martin Lindsay: One is at a disadvantage in speaking at this stage because of not knowing what the Minister is going to say. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us that the Government have decided that this long overdue reform of local government is to take place within a definite time limit. If the Minister says that the Government will undertake this reorganisation within the lifetime of the present Parliament, I for one should be prepared to let the Bill drop. If, on the other hand, my right hon. Friend can make no such specific statement and says that it is difficult to say when this can take place, I think that we should give the Bill a Second Reading and send it upstairs to a Committee, when the full aspects of Ilford's case can be examined.
  So far as we know, there is nothing definite in view. The last Government were unable to find time for this reform—I do not blame them for that—and equally the present Government up to now have not made any statement of their intentions. But it seems to me that if this long overdue reform of local government is still not in sight, local government must put its house in order piecemeal.
  If the status of local authorities was now to be altered, there is not the slightest doubt that Ilford, with its population of 184,000, would be given county borough status. For that reason, if we do not receive a clear statement of the Government's intentions, I shall certainly be glad to support the Bill and to give it my vote tonight. I am satisfied that Ilford's administration would be much simpler if the status of a county borough were given it, and that the upheaval which would arise later, if the major services are for some time to continue on a county basis, would be much greater. I cannot see any objections to the Bill, and for that reason, when we have heard the Minister's statement, I shall take the line that I have indicated.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I want to make it quite clear that in this matter I speak for myself alone and I am not to be taken as voicing the views of any organisation or party. But I have taken a very great interest in this subject of local government for a great many years

  937
  and I regret that so far this evening we have not heard any new argument, either on one side of the other, as to what should take place.
  Mr. C. W. Gibson: There is none left.
  Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend should not be too sure of that. It seemed to me that supporters of the Bill this evening were relying on the 19th century conception of local government. That came in very soon after the Reform Act, 1832, and was that what we wanted to establish for a local government unit was what was called "community of interest," and that the people should be grouped together so that we got isolated groups with particular interests that would enable them to deal with their own matters without too much concern for their neighbours on either side. I believe that is outmoded.
  What we want now in a local government unit is diversity of interest. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) put to us tonight the idea that we have this great urban area near London and this widely scattered rural area immediately adjoining it, and these two must be regarded, in Kipling's lines, as,
  "East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet."
  That idea is completely outmoded. What we want to get is a conception that to make up a sound community we want more than one interest, and that diversity is a very good thing.
  When I come to the proposals for Ilford, again speaking for myself alone, I cannot see that we could pluck out from the great conurbation east of London this particular piece in the middle of it and turn that into a county borough, leaving the remainder, without giving any thought at the same time as to what the proper boundaries of that particular bit are. One of the astounding things about these great conurbations is the way in which communities have been obliterated when all boundary marks have been submerged by the growth of the population.
  As the hon. Member for Colchester suggested, anyone going east from Liverpool Street would be very well acquainted with local government administration and practice if he could say when he was in one borough rather than the other. There is no break between the communi-
  938
  ties, but merely some dots which, we understand, were placed on the map by Alfred the Great. That they should determine the boundaries between local government units in these days in present circumstances is quite fantastic.
  I hold the view for myself that we would be ill-advised to pass this Measure tonight, but I think that the time has come when there should be a comprehensive review of the organisation of local government in the light of modern conditions. I do not think that the fact that there is a small majority on one side or the other of the House need of necessity preclude us from undertaking that, because in one way the existence of a small majority might compel both the Government and the Opposition to take more reasonable views than they would do if one side felt that it could steam-roller the other.
  I suggest that one of the things to which this Parliament might give its attention is the reorganisation, rather than the reform, of local government. I share the view expressed a few months ago by the right hon. Gentleman that local government is not a drunkard or a bigamist, or somebody in need of corrective training, or even of preventive detention. Local government is a system of organisation to serve the needs of the community as a whole, and I do not think it needs reform. It may need reorganisation in certain areas, and I think that we could probably do it better if we approached it from the point of view of reorganisation rather than by talking of it as if it was something completely antiquated. It is not.
  What it needs is that, in the light of the great developments that have taken place in the spread of population since 1888 and 1894, when the present organisation was really built up, we should have some regard to the way in which the present population and its distribution could be better served were the organisation itself overhauled, and, in some cases, the boundaries revised.
  9.2 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said that he spoke for himself alone. Great as is the importance of South Shields, it does not on this occasion appear to extend

  939
  its boundaries to cover Bishop Auckland. This is not a party matter, and there will be a completely free vote, as far as the Government are concerned.
  The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority and a life-long service in local government work, and I find myself in almost complete agreement with everything he said. As always in these debates which cut across party lines and do not arouse party divisions, we have had an interesting, lively and agreeable discussion, revealing, as one of my hon. Friends has said, rather amusing and unexpected divisions between hon. Members who ordinarily find themselves agreeing. I only rise to do what I think it is right to do, though not at any length, which is to state the view which I have to take as the Minister responsible for these matters in the broad sense.
  Last year, on a similar Bill, I made an attempt to summarise the arguments on both sides, and, in a rather more comprehensive way, I made a statement on the position of the Government. I do not intend to repeat that in any detail, because I do not think it is necessary. We really know the arguments on both sides. Nevertheless, there are one or two points which have been made in the debate to which it would be discourteous of me not to refer. The very excellent speeches to which we have listened included one from the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), who, apart from some rather heretical observations about national boards, gave us the value of his very long experience, and, I thought, spoke with great fairness, although he came down in the end quite clearly on one side.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) gave us a rather refreshing view of the situation. It was perhaps rather too radical and revolutionary for my taste. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton), on the other hand, apart from setting us a problem of how one would rip a crown from one's vitals, which must be a rather painful operation, put forward the suggestion which I think many hon. Members have in mind. He suggested that somehow or other we must try some day to get an agreed solution of the problem.
  How are we to get it? That is the practical problem. I think it right to say
  940
  again quite frankly that it was not possible in 1952 to introduce a Bill to deal with the reorganisation of local government I stress the word, "reorganisation." I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields used it. I think that the word "reform" is derogatory to a system of government which, though it has some faults and maladjustments to modern conditions, is the pride of the country and which has given, and is giving, most admirable service.
  Outside this House a great deal is said about what Governments can do and what Parliament can do. But we who have been here for a good many years know quite well what are the limitations of Parliamentary time. We know the number of legislative days that any Government have at their disposal upon the Floor of the House and in the Standing Committees. It was not possible to deal with this matter in 1952. In that year I had to introduce into the House the Housing Bill, the Town Development Bill and the New Towns Bill.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: The Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill also took a long time.
  Mr. Macmillan: We know that there are 30 or 40 legislative days, and each Measure takes a day or a day and a half. This year we have had the Town and Country Planning Bill and the Local Government Superannuation Bill, which I thank my colleagues for carrying through the Standing Committee today, and we may have some other Measures in this Session. It is clear, therefore, that there will be no Bill in this Session. I want to be frank so that hon. Members are fully aware of the situation.
  In 1954 we have to introduce a Rating Bill, because we introduced a Bill to put off a system which was found to be unworkable and we have now to find a system which will work. That is a most urgent Measure. We have also to introduce a Town and Country Planning Bill which is a complicated affair, and there are one or two other matters which I need not discuss now but with which we may have to deal. Members who have been in Government know the fight between Departments to get a place for their legislation. In my Department we have had a fair place.

  941
  I am saying this not to put a defeatist view but merely to show what the facts are. In 1953 we shall not introduce a Bill to deal with the reorganisation of local government. We shall not do so in 1954. That leads one to the prospect which the right hon. Gentleman held out, that on a non-party and agreed basis, balancing our small majority, and even exploiting it for the very purpose of getting agreement which otherwise might not be so easy, we might introduce a local government reorganisation Measure in 1955.
  Mr. Panned: The Tories will not be in power then.
  Mr. Macmillan: I think that it was suggested that that would be an agreeable hors d'œuvre or apéritif to the election which might follow. It will be one of those agreed Measures of which I have now had a certain experience, but I must say that the discussion on both sides of the House does not lead me to suppose that a great measure of agreement is likely to be forthcoming. It is in that atmosphere and in the light of the picture I have painted that the House must decide.
  But I wish to give both aspects as fairly as possible, and so I will admit that the argument against this Bill is not so strong as was the case last year regarding the Ealing Bill. While any large-scale change in the county borough system would result in the virtual destruction of the County of Middlesex, that could not be argued so strongly regarding the County of Essex. Middlesex would be practically destroyed, whereas Essex would be left with substantial power, acreage and even rateable value.
  The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), who spoke against the Bill, said that if this Bill were to be passed his own borough would probably be in the field for similar powers. I still feel that any major reorganisation of local government ought, if possible, to be done as a whole. I have not given up hope that it may be possible by some method to obtain a measure of agreement, so long as we are not too ambitious about what we try to do. There are discussions going on now of which I should like to see the final stages. I think we might get a measure of agreement, possibly in this Parliament if it lasts for a sufficiently long
  942
  period, or at any rate an agreement between the parties about a first attempt to be taken in another Parliament; taken out of party discussion and agreed as a result of the thought and work now going on.
  I have every sympathy with boroughs such as Ilford and Ealing and for the case put so admirably by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson). But I still feel it would be far better to wait a little longer and try to get this reorganisation on a comprehensive and, if possible, an agreed basis; at any rate on a comprehensive basis. Although this is a free vote, I would advise the House to be patient for a little longer and to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill and record the view that when this reorganisation comes it should be part of a general and a comprehensive plan.
  Mr. Harry Wallace: The Minister has said he hopes to see the result of discussions now going on. Will he tell us to what discussions he refers?
  Mr. Macmillan: They have been referred to already by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), who said they would be published in a few days' time.
  9.14 p.m.
  Mr. John Hynd: As the Minister said, this subject has been discussed ad nauseam. Everyone in the House knows the arguments for and against. I wish to occupy a few moments in dealing with some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and by the Minister. The Minister has told us that although this is a free vote he would like to give guidance to the House. I listened for that guidance.
  He started by giving us a well-balanced list of the hon. Members who had spoken and proceeded to refer to what is one of the old arguments, which we certainly have had ad nauseam, that this matter should be left over until a comprehensive reform of local government is undertaken. His only spark of advice was when he said that there was at least a stronger argument for this Bill than was the case regarding the Ealing Bill last year, and that this proposal would not have such a detrimental effect

  943
  on Essex as would have 'been the effect upon Middlesex.
  That is precisely the point which makes me and a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that it is no argument to say that if this application were granted it would be followed by other applications. There is a strength of argument in each case, greater or less according to the individual case. It seems to us fairly clear that the House should be prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading in order that it can go to a Committee upstairs where the precise strength of the arguments can be determined.
  Mr. Messer: Nonsense.
  Mr. Hynd: If there is a relative strength attached to each case, then obviously that relative strength could be determined before the decision is made.
  Mr. Messer: If one agrees to the Second Reading one agrees to the principle.
  Mr. Hynd: It does not necessarily follow that when one agrees to examine a case one agrees to the whole of it. When the Bill for the extension of Sheffield came forward last year, the House as a whole agreed to a Second Reading. The Bill was passed in the Committee upstairs but was rejected in another place. But the detailed argument of the individual case was carefully examined. Other applications for extension of borough boundaries had previously been rejected, but again on their merits. All I suggest is that this Bill should be given a Second Reading so that it can be thoroughly examined in Committee.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields poured scorn on suggestions that one can divide these conurbations of populations which may overlap. He said that it was absurd to suggest that because King Alfred had placed a few dots on the map we should be tied to them as the basis of our local government administration. But it happens to be the case that those dots are established units of local administration. It is because there is an Ilford Borough Council, responsible for the administration of that area, recognised for a long period as being Ilford, that they have responsibilities to the community and have ser-
  944
  vices to maintain there. Indeed, in population and in other terms they are as important as a large number of other towns throughout the country. Therefore, there is a case for agreeing that, at least until we are prepared to face the reform of local government, that fact should be recognised.
  The Minister has again brought forward the argument that whatever the merits of this case or other cases that might follow—which I suggest should be examined on their merits—we should wait until there is this general review of local government. The point is that there is no apparent prospect of that happening in our time. That argument has been brought forward on every occasion that this problem has been raised. The Minister said that there was no prospect of a review of local government in 1953. There will be none in 1954. There was none in 1952, or during the whole period of the Labour Government. There might be a possibility of talks in 1955, but who knows what the general situation will be then? What if there is no real solution? We shall have a division of opinion—a division of counties and boroughs—as we have on all these occasions, and it will be a very long time before we reach a decision. Perhaps it never will be reached.
  In the view of a large number of supporters of this Bill, it is not good enough that Governments year by year, and possibly decade by decade in the future, should be able to prevent these great units of population, which have been built up under an established authority, from having all the facilities of such an authority in order to carry on responsible administration. I submit to those who are hesitant that so long as we continue to accept that argument, so long as we continue to reject all these Bills as they come forward because of that argument, we are giving every successive Government the excuse they need to shelve the general question of local government reform.
  Those of us who are in favour of the Bill are as enthusiastic for local government reform as the Minister or any other hon. or right hon. Member who is against the Bill. But we submit that until a general reform of local government can be agreed by all parties, maybe in the dim and distant future, it is no excuse for any existing Government simply to

  945
  shelve all these urgent applications and to appeal for the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I strongly urge those who are keen on local government reform to support this Bill in order to let the Government see that something has got to be done.
  So long as we accept the present arrangements for the organisation of local government, so long as we are prepared to shelve the general question of reform, we shall have to face up to our responsibility as a Parliament in the existing framework and, when all the arguments have been examined, in Committee, when the proposal has been through the other place, and the case thoroughly weighed up and put through the sieve that Parliament provides, applications should be granted after the merits of the case have been considered and it has been decided that in present circumstances it is justified.
  9.21 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Colegate: I have listened with great interest to this debate because my sympathies are somewhat widely scattered. I represent a constituency which has in it a county borough, an urban district council and two rural district councils; and I am president of the Rural District Councils' Association which, as has already been said, has come to an agreement, for the first time in the history of local government, with the County Councils' Association, the Urban District Councils' Association and the Association of Parish Councils.
  It is true that the Association of Municipal Corporations has so far not agreed, but I would not put it beyond the bounds of possibility, if we get informed discussion, as we shall in the next few months after these proposals are published on Saturday, that the A.M.C. may alter its point of view. That, I think the House will agree, will immediately place a totally different aspect on the whole question, because then we shall get, as I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) say, a step taken towards reorganisation, because we do not want a complete revolution in local government. We have a system which in most of its aspects has worked admirably since it was founded in 1888, but adjustments are required owing to the growth of population, changes in methods of living, and so on, and it is remarkable that these four local authority associations
  946
  have, after much hard discussion, been able to agree on what is now required to bring the system up to date.
  If that be so—and I do not think anybody can deny it—surely this is a very odd time to bring forward a Bill taking out one piece of this great conurbation in London and making a county borough of it. One of my hon. Friends talked about a new pattern being formed if this Bill were passed. New pattern! Nonsense. That is the old pattern which has done so much harm in the past by dealing with propositions piecemeal, taking well-to-do industrial urban areas out of the county and making county administration more difficult.
  It cannot convince Members of the House of Commons, if they think about it, to argue that one could take away half the population of Essex and half the rateable value and not injure the county administration. Even the salaries of their county officers, the amount they spend on technical schools, and other services must be based largely on the resources at their disposal. How can we use those resources and not injure the administration built up over the years? Somebody else suggested this would help local government to put its house in order. How can it help to put that house in order, to take a piece out of a county?
  I hope that the House will agree decisively to reject this Bill. It was rejected in 1950. No good new reasons have been given for it. I remember the debate before very well. There has been just one new argument tonight. I have heard tonight from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) that there was not a house for the aged poor in the middle of Ilford. A more unsuitable place to accommodate them I cannot imagine.
  Sir G. Hutchinson: I said more than that. I said there was not a single county institution in the Borough of Ilford. That is true.
  Mr. Colegate: My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) has referred to the fire brigade.
  Sir G. Hutchinson: The fire station was put there when Ilford was a fire authority.
  Mr. Colegate: One knows, of course, that many of these things were built up

  947
  when local government was in a different position from that in which it is today, but that does not mean that there is not a most efficient fire service in Ilford.
  Here we have an opportunity of demonstrating not only to Ilford but to all other possible applicants for county boroughship in this country that we do not propose to grant their requests. Before that is done we must have reform, or, as I prefer to call it, reorganisation of local government. Only then shall we deal with local government as an organic whole, instead of piecemeal, assisting one local authority at the expense of another.
  9.27 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: If I needed one reason to vote for the Bill tonight it would be the speech of the Minister, and second only to that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). It seems to me that we have had again the whole pattern of the arguments that we have had year after year. The person I feel sorry for tonight is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, who is sitting there on the Treasury Bench almost bursting with indignation because he sought similar powers for Luton as are now asked for Ilford.
  We have been told tonight, as on other occasions, that negotiations are taking place. We have been told that the Parish Councils' Association has agreed with the Municipal Councils' Association. Talk about the lion lying down with the lamb. We have heard of the comradeship of the Municipal Councils' Association. It seems to me that the solidarity is far more solid amongst some hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House than any I have known in one party against another in the Division Lobbies.
  I can remember being in on the negotiations for the reform of local government. Since Lord Jowitt started them as Paymaster-General in 1940 we have had these sorts of arguments. I can only say that the Government, like previous Governments, in the Prime Minister's own words, have "resolved to be only irresolute." We are told now that we have to wait until 1955 before the Government will consider the matter at all.
  Mr. Colegate: The hon. Gentleman may have been in on all sorts of negotiations, but this is the first time that four
  948
  local authority associations have agreed on a solution, which will be published about Eastertide.
  Mr. Pannell: I can only assume that the disturbing element was the fact that the hon. Gentleman was not in on the other negotiations.
  I can only say of the Minister's speech today that it might just as well have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), when winding up the Boundary Commission. He said in effect: "We scrap the Boundary Commission; go back and promote your Private Bills." He said, "Bring your Bills forward." What happens? When Private Bills are brought forward, the mixture is as before; the same arguments are brought up. We have had two speeches from the County Councils' Association. Middlesex branch, here tonight, by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) and the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter).
  Mr. Messer: Will my hon. Friend permit me to say that I am not a member of the County Councils' Association, I am not a member of any county council and I do not live in Middlesex?
  Mr. Pannell: My hon. Friend is a refugee from Middlesex. He cannot get out of it in that way. He represents a Middlesex constituency and is the distinguished ex-vice-chairman of the County Councils' Association. His old loves do not die as quickly as that. In any case, Middlesex never was a county. It is a metropolitan county which, he agrees himself, ought to be a county borough. It resembles nothing like any other county at all. The same sort of problem that we have in Essex is the problem that we have in Kent.
  The Boundary Commission were in favour of a metropolitan county of West Kent. I do not want to argue their case here tonight. The same applies to the constituency which my right hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Attlee) represents. There is no question that this aspiration for county borough status was in Walthamstow when I was on the council there in 1929. There is an argument in this matter of county borough status that London is quite big enough, and that a ring of county places around London would prevent it getting

  949
  any bigger. That might be a reasonable solution of the difficulty.
  I shall give a vote tonight because I think that this House should express dissatisfaction from time to time with the way in which local government is always relegated to second place. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, as the hon. Member for Luton, puts up a case for Luton. The Minister of Transport, representing Mid-Bedfordshire, put up a case against Luton, not because he knew anything about local government, but merely because he had received a brief from the Mid-Bedfordshire County Council.
  Mr. Herbert Morrison: What does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food know about local government?
  Mr. Pannell: I am not saying that he knows anything about it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) knows nothing about local government either. He is only the ex-spokesman of that monstrosity, the London County Council. He is a believer in local imperialism. He is taking all the powers off Metropolitan boroughs.
  Broadly speaking, we have to set up a local government which has some power and receives some sort of respect. I was always in favour of the Boundary Commission, and I hope that very soon some Government will set up a Boundary Commission which alters and remoulds local government as the years go by, subject to periodical report to this House. Then the people who know something about local government will have some sort of charge over it. It will not be left to the indiscriminate pressure of Private Bills, and local government may then receive the treatment that it deserves. Local government is not the junior partner of government. We have never treated it with proper respect, and I shall vote for the Ilford Bill tonight.
  9.35 p.m.
  Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: We are now nearing the conclusion of the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) for his strong support for the Bill. Whether he gets into trouble with his right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) is
  950
  a matter which will have to be worked out between them.
  Mr. Pannell: We do not have sanctions of that sort on this side of the House.
  Squadron Leader Cooper: The most serious point is that raised by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate), who have referred to the agreement entered into between the County Councils' Association and various smaller associations concerned with local government. It is grossly unfair that the agreement should have been referred to when the House has not had any opportunity of discussing its details or of knowing what is in the agreement. If my hon. Friend wants to be fair to the House, he should state that what the agreement says is that the status quo between the county councils and the smaller organisations is to be maintained.
  I am informed that the County Councils' Association have not given up one whit of their power over the smaller local authority organisations. It is important to note that the authorities which really matter, the boroughs, have not been consulted, not are they parties to the agreement. It is a most nonsensical agreement to enter into, and it is nonsensical to claim that it does something of great importance which will be of benefit in remoulding our future local government.
  Mr. Colegate: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend does not wish to be unfair. The mention of the agreement by myself and other hon. Members had no connection with its details. It was merely emphasised that, as an agreement had been reached and was to be published in two or three days' time, this was a bad moment to bring forward a Bill of this kind.
  Squadron Leader Cooper: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it depends on what is in the agreement. The impression has been created in the House that an agreement of considerable consequence has been reached between the associations concerned. My advice is that no such agreement has been reached and that what has been determined is simply the maintenance of the status quo. When

  951
  the agreement is published at the weekend, we shall see whether that is so.
  My hon. Friend said that he had heard no fresh argument this year as compared with the year before. Surely it is a new argument that three years have passed? In the last three years we have had over and over again the same arguments why first the Ilford scheme, then Luton's, and then Ealing's again should be deferred. Surely the fact that various Ministers have said that reform will take place and it has not taken place is a very powerful reason why the law of the land as it exists at present should be operated for the benefit of boroughs such as Ilford which seek an improvement of their status.
  I have very great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton), who has done a very great deal for local government within the county of Essex, but I am not aware that at any time since 1944 he has raised his voice in protest as a result of our local government being reorganised by various Acts of Parliament put upon the Statute Book by the Socialist Government, as the result of which the county authorities have been given responsibility for education, town planning, health and fire services. All those things went one after another from the boroughs, and the county councils secured those greater powers. The county councils never protested about this; they were very glad to have the powers. As regards Essex, Ilford has had a great deal of difficulty about a proper scheme of delegation for certain of those services.
  Mr. Ashton: My hon. and gallant Friend must be clear about the distinction between legislation in this House and the administration of the legislation, which is a matter for the county councils. I was not in the House of Commons when the legislation was passed, but, as an administrator, it was my duty to administer those great Acts as best I could in the county of Essex.
  Mr. Messer: In 1944 there was not a Socialist Government.
  Squadron Leader Cooper: That is not the argument I am making. The argument I am making is that under various Acts of Parliament dealing with education, town and country planning, the fire
  952
  services and so on, the structure of local government was modified very much, and many of the powers which boroughs had had for many years were taken from them and given to county councils. There was no criticism of the county councils when they got those powers. There was no voice raised in this House in defence of the boroughs or to state that the time was not opportune. We were doing it year by year.
  Then there was the Boundary Commission, which was supposed to give us a proper overhaul of local government. I remember that when I first spoke in this House for the Ilford Corporation the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who was then the Minister of Health and in charge of local government, gave as his reason for asking the House to reject the Corporation's Bill the fact that there was a second review going on at that time. In fact, there was no second review going on. The following year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) was the Minister in charge, and he used the argument that Parliament was so constituted, and the majorities were so slender, that nothing could be done at the time.
  Ilford, Ealing, Luton and the other authorities are entitled to ask the House when there will be a Government so constituted that this problem of local government can be dealt with. The next General Election may resolve itself into a Parliament with the parties evenly balanced again. That is the argument advanced for our difficulties today and one can see that this problem, so vital and so urgent, will again not be dealt with.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford made some reference to the efficiency of the Essex County Council in connection with the recent floods. It was not the intention of either my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) or myself to make any reference to the Essex County Council in this connection. Since it has been brought in as an argument in favour of the rejection of this Bill, I must tell the House that the Essex County Council did not conduct themselves in an efficient manner in this matter. I propose to state the facts.
  In connection with the fire appliances, the Home Office put into operation the

  953
  war-time arrangements through the fire officers who had been designated for emergency purposes. It was they and not the county officers who decided which authority should render assistance. In accordance with these arrangements it was decided that East Ham should not be called upon, and that only the larger fire authorities should be asked to render assistance. Southend were informed of the floods at 7.30 on the Sunday morning and immediately contacted other chief officers. Southend and the whole of the Southend services helped in the work. The Southend service was operating at Canvey Island before any of the services were sent from the county of Essex.
  Mr. Messer: They were right on top of it.
  Squadron Leader Cooper: Southend County Borough supplied the ambulances, 'buses and other effects to assist in the rescue work. It is quite untrue to say that if Southend had been a county district it would have co-ordinated the services more effectively. The reverse, in fact, is true. Southend is a county borough, with all the services under its immediate control, and it was in a position to mobilise those services much quicker than Essex. The county was not, in fact, able to contrive any sort of organisation until quite late in the day after the floods.
  That is a very powerful argument in favour of the smaller authority having control of its own affairs. That was proved in time of emergency. One other fact is that the first Civil Defence corps on Canvey Island came from Middlesex, and not from the corps under the control of Essex County Council.
  Mr. Messer: That shows what a county can do.
  Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that the efforts of the Essex County Council were of a very high order?
  Squadron Leader Cooper: The debate has proceeded upon clearly defined lines. There are three specific arguments for us to answer. The first is that the time is not ripe because reform is pending. The second is that if Ilford secures county borough status the County of Essex will suffer, and the third is that other local authorities will want a similar status. No real argument has been adduced against
  954
  the merits of Ilford being given county borough status.
  Let me deal with the first argument. We have heard from my right hon. Friend that there will be no Measure of reform in 1953 or in 1954. We cannot possibly get one until 1955. There is no guarantee that there will be reform during the life of this Parliament. The Labour Government altered or repealed the Boundary Commission legislation and put local authorities back where they always were, namely, that when they want an improvement in their status, they have to resort to the Private Bill method. That is the law today. We have to consider the Bill within the limits of the present law and not on the basis of what may happen in five, 10 or 15 years' time.
  Secondly, is there any truth in the argument that the county will suffer? The first consideration would be one of finance. I think it could be pointed out that the operation of the equalisation Act will mean that the county will not suffer at all.
  Mr. Messer: The equalisation fund does not equalise.
  Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Member made a similar observation during the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North who pointed out that it was the hon. Gentleman's party that put the Local Government Act, 1948, on the Statute Book and allowed local authorities to apply for equalisation without the liability of the heavy compensation payment to which they were subject in days gone by. That charge has to be borne, and is operating in the county. The Socialist Act of 1948 means that the County of Essex will not suffer financially if Ilford is taken away.
  Mr. Pargiter: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean, in plain English, that Ilford will pay less and that Essex will not suffer because they will get more money from the Exchequer?
  Squadron Leader Cooper: That is perfectly true. That is, in fact, the purpose of the Local Government Act, 1948. That is what hon. Members opposite put it there for. It is under that Act that Ilford seeks to attain this improvement in its status. The argument is that the Essex County Council will not suffer the

  955
  loss of one penny piece by the severance of the Ilford Borough Council, and no real argument has been adduced from any part of the House to the contrary.
  The third and general argument, which Che hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) dealt with adequately, was that, if Ilford is granted county borough status, many other authorities will follow suit. What is wrong with that? If they are sufficiently large and can operate their services efficiently, surely that is what we should encourage? What we seek to have in this country is the most efficient form of government, whether national or local, that we can devise.
  Many other local authorities, not quite as big as Ilford, but sizeable authorities, such as the ones represented by the hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) and Tottenham (Mr. Messer), must bring forward their cases. Simply to promote a Bill does not get one anywhere. One must have facts to support the argument brought forward. It is not admitted that all the places which want county borough status can justify their claim. Nevertheless, supposing they could, I do not believe that is an argument why Ilford should not be given the status it now desires.
  The effect of the present position of the law, the attitude of this Government and of the previous Government, is to stifle local initiative and to destroy the local character of government. Democracy, if it means anything at all, is based on the effort of the people sharing in their own government. The transfer of services from local to county authorities did not arouse any hostility from the counties, although the effect of those transfers was to emasculate local government and to destroy its local character.
  I earnestly hope that the House will give a Second Reading to this important
  Bill tonight. We do not claim that it cannot be improved in Committee. We claim, however, that on the facts as put forward to the House, both tonight and in previous years, we can justify the case which we make. We cannot look forward to local government remaining hamstrung in perpetuity as it is at present, and so I earnestly hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.
  9.54 p.m.
  Mr. Harry Wallace: I do not propose to detain the House for more than two minutes. I am in favour of the reorganisation of local government because I think the need for it is urgent. Yet I have a good deal of sympathy with the point of view expressed that the Metropolitan boroughs have lost practically all their powers of initiative. However, that is another issue.
  I listened to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and found it unsatisfactory. There seemed to be a hint that Ilford might receive exceptional treatment, but those who are sponsoring this Bill are quite satisfied that nothing of the kind is intended. There is no indication that the Government intend to deal with this problem. I do not criticise them because I think they have made it quite clear that they will not hold this baby; they think the previous Government deserted or would not touch it. So these local authorities are in the position that they have to promote Private Bills.
  It is fair to say that no case has been made against Ilford so far as this Private Bill is concerned. I represent Walthamstow, East. Walthamstow desires county borough status and so do many similar areas, and on this occasion I intend to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 75.

  Division No. 124.]

  AYES

  [9.55 p.m.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Barber, Anthony

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Janner, B.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)

  Johnoon, Eric (Blackley)

  Bowden, H. W.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Brockway, A. F.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Keenan, W.

  Channon, H.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Kerr, H. W.

  Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Lindsay, Martin

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Wallace, H. W.

  Maude, Angus

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Wigg, George

  Morley, R.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Moyle, A.

  Storey, S.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Summers, G. S

  Oakshott, H. D.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W.D.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson and

  Pannell, Charles

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Squadron Leader Cooper.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Wakefield Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

  NOES

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Parker, J.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Herbison, Miss M

  Redmayne, M.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Sing, G. H. C.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras. N.)

  Black, C. W.

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Blackburn, F.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Hynd, H.(Accrington)

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

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

  Steele, T.

  Colegate, W. A.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Crouch, R. F.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Deer, G.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Turton, R. H.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Marples, A. E.

  Viant, S. P.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

  Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

  Vosper, D. F.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S.L.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Mellor, Sir John

  Wellwood, W.

  Fort, R.

  Messer, F.

  Whitley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Gibson, C. W.

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

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hale, Leslie

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Harman, W.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hastings, S.

  Palmer, A.M. F.

  Mr. Pargiter and Mr. Ashton

  Question put, and agreed to.

  WATER SUPPLIES, CLEVELAND
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."— [Sir H. Butcher.]
  10.3 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: Under the interesting procedure of this House, in order to preserve my right to speak now, I was obliged to start my speech at three minutes to seven o'clock. I am sure that that was not only to my convenience but somewhat to the convenience of the borough of Ilford. However, since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government could scarcely be expected to be present during my previous very short speech, I am sure that it will be to his advantage if I start from the beginning.
  I am raising this evening a matter which is admittedly of primary constituency interest. It perhaps has no broad application, except in the sense that there are many districts in this country where the water supply arrangements, which were satisfactory 50 or even 30 years ago, are no longer satisfactory. That certainly is the case in the part of the Cleveland constituency with which I am dealing this
  958
  evening. The area concerned is one which may or may not be known to the hon. Gentleman It is the extreme northern coastal area of the North Riding, an area which is of mixed industrial and agricultural composition, with the emphasis these days on industry.
  I wish to admit that the physical conditions are difficult from a water supply point of view. It could hardly be denied that, geographically, the district is extremely hilly; I believe that there are some of the highest cliffs in the country along the coast. The area embraces several small towns and villages. There is the town of Loftus, the urban district of Skelton and Brotton, Carling How and Skinningrove—among others—names which I think indicate the Danish origin of the ancestors of the bulk of the population.
  The statutory water supply authority is the Cleveland Water Company, and there are also several private water supplies of varying quantity, and also, unfortunately, of varying quality. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will understand that I have no desire to go out of my way to criticise the Cleveland Water Company; it is fair to say that today the directors and the management of this

  959
  small company are struggling with a postwar situation which is rather beyond them. But I think it could also be said equally fairly that the company has always lacked capital resources and technical direction adequate to achieve its statutory obligations. It is true, certainly, that there have been complaints from the local authorities most concerned over a long period of time.
  Forgetting the ancient history of the business, in 1944—and this will be in the records of the Parliamentary Secretary's Department—the local authorities in the company's area jointly sent a letter to the Ministry complaining of the unsatisfactory water service, and pointing out what would be the pressing post-war needs. The result was that consulting engineers were brought in, and reported in some detail on the resources of the water company. As an immediate consequence, very minor technical improvements were made.
  Later, in 1946, a report was prepared, and this was the first major attempt to look ahead in the planning of water supplies of this district. The report was in favour of the construction of a large new reservoir—the reservoir which is described as the Scaling Dam scheme. Unfortunately, it has been the history of this business, and this is what troubles my constituents and the local authorities which represent them, that practical events still proceed at a tortoise-like pace.
  Of course, there was the usual inquiry, there were the usual objectors; events moved very slowly indeed, and, by 1949, it will be found that on two occasions in that rather difficult year for water supplies generally the local authorities concerned were again in touch with the Ministry about the gravity of the water supply situation, pointing out that there were householders in considerable numbers who were carrying water from springs and open streams, with all the risk of pollution and danger to health and sanitation.
  It was not until June, 1952, that consent was finally given to proceed with this Scaling Dam scheme which had first been drawn up six years before. The original cost in 1946 was £215,000. The estimated cost today has now advanced to about £450,000. This is a matter on which I
  960
  should like the enlightenment which I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to provide. It has now been discovered that in order to find money for the scheme the company must raise capital on the open market. To do that they must further increase their water charges, which have already been advanced over the years.
  My comment is that over a period there has been made talk by the water company, by the local authorities concerned and the Ministry about this scheme, which was to provide a solution, but apparently there has been little real thought about how the scheme should be financed. In any case, on the most optimistic estimate, it will be a year or so before the work is under way and it may easily be three or four years before the scheme is completed. Meantime, the local authorities, especially Loftus Urban District Council and the Skelton and Brotton Urban District Council, are faced with an increasingly critical situation.
  At the meeting of the Loftus Urban District Council in January it was reported that completed council houses were standing empty because of the lack of water. Perhaps I could also quote from a report of the Skelton and Brotton Council, which is in the records of the hon. Gentleman's Department, and which says:
  "The Council would also point out that they are at present engaged on a comprehensive housing programme of several hundred houses which will entail a continuing and considerably increased demand on the present water supply and they are almost afraid to contemplate the difficulties with regard to water which will arise in five years' time if the Scaling Dam Scheme is then still far from completion."
  That was reported to the Minister in 1951. These are not remote rural districts: they are often small but densely built areas. It is not unknown in these small towns for built-up areas to be without water for days at a time, even in winter. It would be penetrating as well to quote from the various reports of the local medical officer of health which I have in my possession, but time does not allow of that.
  I make no party point in this matter. I want to be perfectly fair to the hon. Gentleman. There has been correspondence with the Minister and with his

  961
  predecessor about temporary measures, but it is uncertain whether they will help very much. A booster pump is to be brought in. It is a matter of technical opinion, but I am not sure that that will help very much. Therefore, knowing the responsibilities of the Minister under the 1945 Act, I wish to address some questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. I stress that I am making no party point. If it had been possible I should have put precisely the same questions to this Minister's predecessor.
  Knowing that the only fundamental remedy for the water supply difficulty in this district is the completion of this Scaling Down scheme, what practical steps does the Parliamentary Secretary's right hon. Friend propose to take? He has authorised the scheme, but what steps does he propose to take to hasten the start and the completion of it? Is it possible for the company to be helped financially from public sources? When, because of public health considerations, the local authorities are from time to time compelled to carry water, is it right that the local ratepayers should have to foot the Bill when there is a statutory water company, obliged under the law to give a supply?
  Is the Minister satisfied that the financial and technical resources of the Cleveland Water Company are adequate to meet their statutory obligations? I ask this after careful thought, and following talks on the subject with informed local people. Would the Minister consided using the powers given him under the 1945 Act to compel amalgamation and the formation of a larger and perhaps more successful authority? I would appreciate answers to those questions, which are of importance to the ordinary comfort and health of my constituents, and which are certainly matters of urgent administrative concern to the local authorities affected.
  10.18 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) said this subject was a constituency matter. On these Adjournment debates most of the speeches dealt with are constituency matters, as I have found from experience. He said he did not know whether the district was known to me. I know it intimately. During the war I was in that
  962
  area. I spent some time with Messrs. Dorman Long in Middlesbrough and I went to Cleveland. The hon. Member did not make a political point at all, and for my part I also do not propose to make any party point. But I am going to a Cleveland garden fete in the summer in order to help the local Tories. I hope the hon. Member will come to the meeting because, with his open mind, it might be possible for me to convert him.
  I should like to deal with the history of the Cleveland Water Company, which operates under its Acts of 1869 and 1899 and the subsequent Orders under the Water Act of 1945. It is true that the local authorities have been pressing the water company for an increased supply for many years. The long-term answer of the company, as distinct from short-term expediency, has been to get a larger reservoir known as the Scaling Dam scheme which was first submitted to my Department in 1946. The hon. Gentleman said they started in 1944, but it did not come to the Department until 1946.
  In order to help the water supply in the district an Order was made in 1946 for the company to make a temporary abstraction of 300,000 gallons from—
  Mr. Palmer: I said representations were first made by the local authority in 1944.
  Mr. Marples: That is true, but I am saying it did not come to the Department until 1946. Representations were then made to the then Socialist Government, of which the hon. Member was a supporter, the company were given power to make a temporary abstraction of 300,000 gallons from the Sleddale Beck. That Order has been renewed annually.
  Despite that, the company have been unable to maintain pressure in their main and areas on high level ground cannot be adequately supplied. In 1949, water carting had to be carried out extensively. It is true to say, however, that this was so in many parts of the country because of the exceptionally dry summer of that year. It was not peculiar to this district; it was general.
  At a meeting in April, 1951, with officers of the Department, representatives of Skelton and Brotton Urban District Council, Saltburn and Marske Urban District Council and the borough of

  963
  Redcar met representatives of the company. The deputation was led by Mr. O. G. Willey, the late Member for the Cleveland Division. It was made plain to the water company at that meeting that the initiative rested with them to prepare their scheme fully. An undertaking was given that the Department would not in any way delay the proposals if they were satisfactory. In fact a scheme was authorised in June, 1952.
  It ought to be said quite clearly that the state of supply to the rural areas is undoubtedly unsatisfactory, but there are no special features known to us which really make this scheme more urgent than others. The question of supplies in rural areas is not a question whether a scheme is really needed in a particular area but whether there are other areas which are worse off. I can assure the hon. Member that there are many other rural districts in the country which are far worse off than that to which he has referred. It is a question of relativity. If some rural areas are worse than others then obviously it is the duty of the Department to concentrate on those first. There must be some order of priority.
  The hon. Member mentioned that there is a new housing development in the area and he said that some new houses in Loftus could not be occupied because of an insufficient supply of water. He very kindly gave me advance notice of that point and I spoke to the regional officer on the telephone. I am informed that the chairman of Loftus Urban District Council Housing Committee said that there are no new houses in the area unoccupied because of lack of water. So there is a conflict of evidence here on a matter of fact. If the hon. Member would be kind enough to let me have the addresses of the houses which he had in mind, I will cause inquiry to be made straight away to see if we can have them occupied.
  The hon. Member also said that Loftus Urban District Council can build in part of their area but not in Easington Parish until the water supply is much improved. That is true, but the council have still a sufficient number of houses to occupy the attention of their building force elsewhere. On the general question, the hon. Member said that the scheme was
  964
  reviewed in June, 1952, and authorised at an estimated cost of £444,725.
  Mr. Palmer: I said that Skelton and Brotton Urban District Council reported that their housing development was greatly held up.
  Mr. Marples: Yes, I am coming to that council later. The hon. Member said that the cost of the scheme was about £450,000 in June, 1952. In fact is was authorised, as I have said, at an estimated cost of £444,725. The hon. Member said that in 1946 it was estimated to cost £215,000; but with his knowledge of engineering he will know that in 1946 the scheme was not in sufficient detail for any precise and accurate costing to be made. He knows that civil engineering schemes are all alike. Somebody gets out a rough sketch, but when people carry out soil tests and examine the mechanics of the soil they find that the scheme costs far more money. What is also troubling me in this case is that there is a difference between estimates and final costs in most large schemes. In civil engineering one enters the unknown and all sorts of things can happen underground.
  Because of their inability to meet their financial obligations the company sought further borrowing powers and these were given in the Cleveland Water Company Order, November, 1952. The scheme was therefore held up pending the issue of that Order. It may be that they have delayed commencement of work because they want to make sure that revenue will provide a sufficient return on the capital. But every assistance has been given to the company in preparing the scheme and getting the necessary powers. If the company or the local authority or both agree to make representations my right hon. Friend's Department will take an interest in the negotiations and do all that they can to help them in borrowing money or in obtaining any technical assistance that they may need. They have said they can start work on the scheme on 1st April next, and the period for the contract is 36 months.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me three questions. First, would we assist them with money; secondly, would we see whether there was sufficient technical advice, whether the firm were sufficiently strong in technicians to carry out the undertaking; and thirdly, could we hurry

  965
  the period of the building? On the first question, I have assured him that we will do everything in our power to help, both in borrowing and in technical assistance.
  Mr. Palmer: I did ask also about amalgamation with the more successful companies.
  Mr. Marples: I will deal with that after I have dealt with these three questions.
  His second question was whether they had sufficient technicians. I understood him to say that a firm of consulting civil engineers had prepared this scheme. If a professional firm of consulting civil engineers have prepared the scheme it is highly probable that the technical staff of the company itself will not be needed in the contract period. Very few water companies or local authorities have on their staffs engineers of the right technical ability, experience and calibre to carry out major works of this magnitude. Generally speaking, one must go to somebody who has spent his whole life in that class of work. The ordinary engineer, while he is good on ordinary maintenance matters, cannot carry out this type of work unless he has had the experience.
  The third of this bunch of questions was whether we could hurry the period of construction. I can say that if there is anything we can do by providing materials and labour to help, it shall be done. But my experience of civil engineering work before I assumed my present office and had to resign from all my civil engineering connections was that marine works and works connected with water supplies cannot be hurried beyond a certain pace. Any marine work—tidal work, of course, is worst of all—can be proceeded with only at a certain rate owing to the difficulties of nature.
  It is precisely the same with this scheme. It takes 11 months to complete a house, and this three-year contract— 36 months—does not seem unreasonable on the face of it. I will, however, look at the question again to see whether it could be speeded up. If the contractors tender has been acceptable to the water company—that is on the question of price, whether they have got technical staff and on the question of time—it is hardly likely at this stage that one could negotiate with them and ask them to
  966
  reduce their period, because they would immediately ask for more money.
  I doubt whether much can be done about their charging and the water rates at the moment, because the company's rates for domestic supply are at present below the average, and their charges for metered supplies are also below the average in the country. They have before us at the present time an application for increased domestic rates which would bring the existing rate up by 24 per cent. on the present rate, but that would still leave it below the average rate for domestic supplies. That application has not yet been decided and is really, in effect, sub judice, so I will not comment on it.
  I can answer one other question, and that is: Who will pay for the cost of the water supplies when it is brought by rail and cart. The answer is, if they are brought within the 24 per cent. increase they will still be below the average in the country, so they are getting their normal water supplies so much below the rest of the country that I should have thought they would have a poor case in asking the rest of the country to shoulder that burden in a period of drought. Even with the 24 per cent. increase on their charge at the moment, they will still be below the average in the country, and I think it is a wee bit hard to ask the rest to pay for water brought in in time of drought.
  The other question was on amalgamation. The hon. Gentleman did not give me notice of that, and, quite frankly, I should like to consider, it, and perhaps write to him about it. I should have thought that if this scheme is started, and if we can press on with it, and get perhaps some agreement arrived at on the charges and the financial aspect, then the hon. Gentleman's rural district, about which he spoke tonight, would have all the water they want.
  Mr. Palmer: It is an urban district.
  Mr. Marples: It is a rural area and an urban district. They would still have the water. That is the best and speediest way of giving the hon. Gentleman's constituents what they desire and deserve.
  Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Ten o'Clock.

EDUCATION
  School Meal Charges
  School Meal Charges
  Monmouthshire
  Monmouthshire
  Teachers (Supply)
  Teachers (Supply)
  Further Education (Fees)
  Further Education (Fees)
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
  Building Projects
  Building Projects
  Economies, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Economies, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Home-Grown Fruit
  Home-Grown Fruit
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Nigeria (Import Duties)
  Nigeria (Import Duties)
  Import Duties
  Import Duties
  Import Licence
  Import Licence
  Caribbean Countries (U.K. Mission)
  Caribbean Countries (U.K. Mission)
  Monopolies Commission Report (Matches)
  Monopolies Commission Report (Matches)
  Spain (Imports and Exports)
  Spain (Imports and Exports)
  Machinery Imports (Committee)
  Machinery Imports (Committee)
  Trade Restrictions (Relaxations)
  Trade Restrictions (Relaxations)
  Overseas Trade Classification (Changes)
  Overseas Trade Classification (Changes)
  Wood Flour
  Wood Flour
  Anglo-Brazilian Trade
  Anglo-Brazilian Trade
  Weights and Measures (Report)
  Weights and Measures (Report)
  COAL PRICES AND FREIGHT RATES
  COAL PRICES AND FREIGHT RATES
  TRANSPORT, FUEL AND POWER (CO-ORDINATION)
  TRANSPORT, FUEL AND POWER (CO-ORDINATION)
  SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Foreign Diplomats (Taxable Purchases)
  Foreign Diplomats (Taxable Purchases)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Equal Pay
  Equal Pay
  Photographic Equipment (Tax)
  Photographic Equipment (Tax)
  University (Grants)
  University (Grants)
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Fiduciary Note Issue (Increase)
  Fiduciary Note Issue (Increase)
  Roumanian Assets (Claims)
  Roumanian Assets (Claims)
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
GRICULTURE
  Grey Squirrels
  Grey Squirrels
  Rabbit Traps
  Rabbit Traps
  Swedish Landrace Pigs
  Swedish Landrace Pigs
  County and District Committees
  County and District Committees
  Harvesting (Labour)
  Harvesting (Labour)
  Apples and Pears (Marketing Scheme)
  Apples and Pears (Marketing Scheme)
  Marginal Production Schemes
  Marginal Production Schemes
  Horse Population
  Horse Population
  Feedingstuffs (De-control)
  Feedingstuffs (De-control)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  British Ports (Security Arrangements)
  British Ports (Security Arrangements)
  New Towns Act (Licensing Committees)
  New Towns Act (Licensing Committees)
  Wild Birds (Protection)
  Wild Birds (Protection)
  Drunkenness (Proceedings and Convictions)
  Drunkenness (Proceedings and Convictions)
  EMPLOYMENT Factory Fires
  EMPLOYMENT Factory Fires
  Wolsingham Exchange
  Wolsingham Exchange
  Hostels (Charges)
  Hostels (Charges)
  COST OF LIVING
  COST OF LIVING
HOSPITALS
  Facilities, Monmouthshire
  Facilities, Monmouthshire
  Detained Patient, Kirkham
  Detained Patient, Kirkham
  War Damage
  War Damage
  Capital Expenditure (Mental Institutions)
  Capital Expenditure (Mental Institutions)
  Home Nursing Equipment
  Home Nursing Equipment
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Bristol Executive Council(Duplicating Machinery)
  Bristol Executive Council(Duplicating Machinery)
  Foreign-Trained Doctors and Dentists
  Foreign-Trained Doctors and Dentists
  Prescription Pricing Offices
  Prescription Pricing Offices
  CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION
  CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION
  COLONIAL OFFICE REPRESENTATIVES, UNITED STATES
  COLONIAL OFFICE REPRESENTATIVES, UNITED STATES
KENYA
  Development
  Development
  Loyal Kikuyu
  Loyal Kikuyu
COAL
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Domestic Supplies, Dagenham
  Domestic Supplies, Dagenham
  N.A.T.O. HEADQUARTERS (BRITISH OFFICERS)
  N.A.T.O. HEADQUARTERS (BRITISH OFFICERS)
  POST OFFICE CHARGES
  POST OFFICE CHARGES
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Fruit Pulp (Imports)
  Fruit Pulp (Imports)
  Sugar Bonuses (Jam-making)
  Sugar Bonuses (Jam-making)
  ROYAL YACHT AND HOSPITAL SHIP (COSTS)
  ROYAL YACHT AND HOSPITAL SHIP (COSTS)
  ADMIRALTY EXPENDITURE, SCOTLAND
  ADMIRALTY EXPENDITURE, SCOTLAND
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Fishermen, Girvan (Insurance Benefits)
  Fishermen, Girvan (Insurance Benefits)
  War Pensioners (Sickness Benefits)
  War Pensioners (Sickness Benefits)
  DOGS (LIVESTOCK DAMAGES)
  DOGS (LIVESTOCK DAMAGES)
  WATER SUPPLIES (FLUORINE)
  WATER SUPPLIES (FLUORINE)
  THE SERPENTINE (FISH STOCKS)
  THE SERPENTINE (FISH STOCKS)
  AIR MINISTRY EXPENDITURE, SCOTLAND
  AIR MINISTRY EXPENDITURE, SCOTLAND
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  HERTS AND ESSEX WATER BILL
  Read 2a.
MILFORD DOCKS BILL
Read 2a.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present a Message from Her Majesty The Queen, signed with her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"Members of The House of Lords,
"I thank you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address expressing sympathy with Me in the great loss which I and My family have sustained by the death of My beloved Grandmother, Queen Mary.
"I know that all My People share my grief for a great Queen, who throughout a lifetime of devoted service, was happy in the knowledge of their warm regard and affection.
"It is a consolation and comfort to Me at this time of sorrow to have this further assurance of the devotion and sympathy of your House."

FUTURE BUSINESS
2.38 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, before we proceed with the Business on the Order Paper, I hope that I may be allowed to make a brief statement on the course of future Business until the Easter Recess. Owing to the Lying-in-State of Her Late Majesty Queen Mary, in Westminster Hall, the House will not meet on Monday next, as originally proposed. We have, therefore, arranged through the usual channels, and with the co-operation of my noble friend Lord Teviot, who has kindly agreed to postpone his Motion on homegrown and home-killed foodstuffs, that
310
the remaining Sittings until the House adjourns for Easter shall be used as follows.
On Tuesday next, March 31, we shall meet at 2.30 p.m. and take the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill, sitting late if necessary. On Wednesday, April I, we shall meet at 2.30 p.m. and take the Motions on Central African Federation now standing on the Paper for Tuesday, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Bukton, and the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester. As there are a very large number of your Lordships who have indicated their desire to take part in this debate, we propose, if your Lordships agree, that the House should adjourn at about seven o'clock and resume the debate after the Royal Commission which is expected on Thursday morning. On that day, the House will meet at 11 a.m. when we shall resume the debate on Central African Feceration. The Royal Commission will sit at 12.30 p.m. I think it will be most convenient to sit through luncheon, in order that the House may rise at 4 p.m. or shortly after.
When the House reassembles on April 14, we propose to take the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill and the Second leading of the Prevention of Crimes Bill, which deals with the carrying of offensive weapons and which is expected from the Commons on Tuesday next. We shall take the Defence debate on Wednesday and Thursday, April 15 and 16.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House one question? It concerns a matter which interests a good many of us. I refer to the Motion on social legislation standing in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Sheffield. As he is not here, I am raising the matter on his behalf. This Motion was down for April 15, and it is, I think, a matter which excites a good deal of interest—and not on Party lines. I do not want an answer on the spur of the moment, but I should like the noble Marquess to know that we on this side of the House, and I am sure many noble Lords on the other side, regard this as an interesting and important matter which merits discussion, and as soon as we can have the discussion I think we should be glad to do so.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Earl that we shall keep this matter very much in mind. There is just one other point that I should like to make while I am speaking. It has been explained by the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, that the debate on Central African Federation will start on the Wednesday, and will continue, if necessary, over Thursday. I think that we should all infinitely prefer that, if there is to be discussion on the Thursday, it should be of a short character. Many Peers have to go away, and although the last thing I want to do is to curtail discussion on a matter of such importance as this, if it turned out to be the wish of the House that we should go on a little later on the Wednesday, in order to shorten the proceedings on Thursday, that would be quite acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.42 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in the event of a Message being received from the Commons that they have passed the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the said Bill over the other Orders of the Day, and for the purpose of passing the Bill through all its stages.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911 and read 1a.
Then, Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 2a: Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.

TRANSPORT BILL
2.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF TRANSPORT, FUEL AND POWER (LORD LEATHERS): My Lords, I rise to move the Third Reading of this Bill. I am glad to have this opportunity to tell your Lordships what a great regret it was to me not to be able to be present during the Committee and Report stages. It is always unsatisfactory, when one has had a hand in shaping something and getting it started, to be prevented from seeing it through. However, it is something of a consolation to me to be here this afternoon, though I should have been much happier if I could have been through the Bill at all stages.
Of course, I followed the arduous proceedings of your Lordships' House with much attention and with great interest, although from afar. Indeed, perhaps the fact that I was not present but merely an onlooker, who proverbially in that position sees the best of the game, makes it a little easier for me to make comment. I have seen how the Bill has been amended as is customary in this House. In fact, I should like, if I may, to say with what admiration I read the Reports of the debates. Indeed, when I saw what a range of knowledge was exhibited on all sides of the House, I did feel some measure of trepidation and not a little respect for the way in which my noble friends dealt so thoroughly with the points raised. I hope I may equally be allowed to thank noble Lords opposite and noble Lords behind me and in all parts of the House for the public-spirited way in which they have made their contribution. I realise what time and trouble they must have given to the matter, and we are certainly indebted to all parts of the House for the help which they have given.
I am told that nearly a hundred Amendments out of a total of 211 on the Order Paper will have been incorporated in the Bill in its passage through your Lordships' House and, of these, over thirty must rank as major or important items. No mean achievement. The time was certainly usefully spent. As I said at the beginning of our proceedings at

313
the time of the Second Reading, the Government have been ready at all stages, as indeed we should be, to listen to suggestions and have not hesitated to amend the Bill by a proper response to public opinion. I hope it will be accepted that this attitude has been maintained in your Lordships' House. Indeed, whatever may be the rights and wrongs in the matter in the reform of this House, it does seem to me—and I have not been here so long that I cannot still take a fairly detached view—that the manner in which this Bill has proceeded and the improvements which have been made in it are very strong evidence that this Chamber has a most valuable part to play in the framing of legislation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Leathers.)
2.47 p.m.
THE SECRETARY of STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, when we finished the Report stage, there were two questions to which I promised that the Government would give further consideration. First, there was the provision in the Bill that the Commission and the Board could reject a tender on the ground that road haulage might become concentrated in too few hands. I was impressed by the argument that this was a political rather than an administrative decision, and that it was, therefore, a decision for which the Minister should be responsible. The House will see that I have put down Amendments to Clause 3, which deals with the sale of units, and Clause 5, which deals with the sale of shares in companies, both of which Amendments provide that, where rejection is proposed on the, ground of the elimination or undue restriction of competition, the consent of the Minister shall be required.
The words "wholly or mainly" are used in those Amendments because there might be a case where restriction was a minor element but where the Commission and the Board have agreed that the tender ought to be refused on other grounds, even if the element of restriction were not present. Obviously, if the ground of rejection is quite irrespective of restriction, that is a matter which ought to rest with the Commission and the Board. The House will also see that I am asking them to substitute for the
314
expression "too few hands," which I must admit is slightly vague, the words
"likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of competition in the carriage of goods by road for hire, or reward."
That is exactly what was meant; and if it is what we mean, than we may as well say it as clearly as we can.
The other matter, which was a larger matter, was the procedure to be followed when the Minister presents to Parliament the railway reorganisation scheme. As I said in the last debate, we are all agreed that if there were substantial criticism, the Minister would want to take time to consider that criticism and to decide whether and in what way he should amend the draft Order which the Government would ask both Houses to approve. I think there is almost certain to be a good deal of discussion on the details as well as on the general principles of arty reorganisation scheme. After full consideration, the Government think it would be right to adopt the suggestion which was made by the noble and learned Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, that the Minister should produce a White Paper, which would contain all the details of the scheme, and that the draft Order should not be tabled at that stage. There would then be a debate in both Houses on the White Paper. The Minister, having considered all that was said in the debates on the White Paper, would table his draft Order end ask both Houses to give the necessary Affirmative Resolution.
It will not be practicable to insert provisions about laying a White Paper in the Bill; but I can give an undertaking that this is the course which will be followed in both Houses. The Bill will therefore stand as drafted, but the draft Order will not be tabled for approval until after the debate on the White Paper. In giving that undertaking, I should make it clear, as I did in an earlier debate, that this undertaking is intended to apply only to the original reorganisation scheme, what I called "the master plan," and is not intended to apply to subsequent amendments of the scheme, which under the Bill also require to be approved by Affirmative Resolution.
I should also make this further reservation. In another place a Select Committee is now sitting on the whole question of procedure by Order and Resolution;

315
and there have already been discussions between Party Leaders in your Lordships' House on the question of setting up a similar Committee in this House. Clearly, if Parliament were to adopt some new procedure for dealing with Affirmative Resolutions in both Houses, an Order for railway reorganisation would fall to be dealt with under that procedure. But assuming that the procedure in Parliament has not been changed before the Minister presents his reorganisation scheme, then the undertaking which I have given to-day will stand. I am glad that we are able to propose these solutions of our two outstanding problems which will, I think, be in accordance with the general wishes of the House.
My Lords, I need not say much about the rest of the Bill. It has been fully debated in Committee and on Report, and a large number of important Amendments have been made. Among more important Amendments the House will recall that we extended the levy exemption limit up to 30 cwt.; and also laid down that when the scheme comes into being it shall provide for regional operating costs and statistics. We considered fully the size and character of the Transport Commission. This has now been enlarged to fifteen, and the Commission is to include four whole-time members in addition to the chairman; and last, but not least, the Commission will include at least two persons conversant with the special circumstances and requirements of Scotland. Then the pensions of the Commission's employees have been further safeguarded. Urban authorities with a population of over 50,000 are now to have a right of objection before the Transport Tribunal; and individual harbour authorities will be able to complain about railway rates placing them at an unfair disadvantage compared with the rates ruling to the Commission's ports. We have introduced an important new clause providing, in appropriate cases, for the constitution of companies, and for the sale of shares in these companies as an alternative method of sale to that of sale in transport units.
The position of the Transport Commission has also been improved in a number of respects. The number of vehicles the Commission will be entitled to keep has been increased to five-fourths, with a wider measure of latitude between the
316
different types of vehicles which the Commission will be entitled to retain. Almost at the last moment on the Report stage we also made provision to increase the value of the assets of the Commission under the Third Schedule by £2 million in respect of tyres, tarpaulins and other articles, the purchase of which had been charged to revenue. The Commission have been given power to run contract vehicles from Sheffield and certain other towns, and they are to be free up to the end of September to carry all private parties booked up to the passing of the Act. The Commission will not be compelled to dispose of money or debts. In these and certain other respects the Bill leaves this House in a form considerably more favourable to the Commission. The Commission have always expressed a wish to retain a larger number of vehicles, and they have complete power to select vehicles of any kind. But in the opinion of the Government, and, as the House has shown, in the opinion of the House, to go further than we have gone would breach the essential purpose and structure of the Bill.
In general I think we can say that, subject to the rejection of Amendments which would have destroyed or gravely prejudiced the main object of the Bill, Amendments of a character that any Government, of whatever complexion, would have been bound to resist, a great number of Amendments have been considered impartially and on their merits, and as so often happens in this admirable revising Chamber a large number of Amendments have been made. I think we can say we have fully fulfilled the purpose which I invited the House to set as their goal when I wound up the Second Reading, in these words (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol 180, col. 817):
"…if we think that a Bill is a good Bill we try to make it better, and if we think a Bill is a bad Bill, we try to make it less bad."
We certainly have made this a better Bill, and I should like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to that result.
3.0 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, this is not an altogether easy speech to make. I wish I could concur with the views which have been expressed by the two noble Lords opposite. I am bound to say I

317
can do no such thing. I can, however, strike this happy note. I am very pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, back in his place. Fortunately, political differences in our public life are never allowed to obscure personal friendships, and the noble Lord knows full well that he has as many friends on this side of the House as on the other side. We all rejoice to see him restored, and I hope soon completely restored, to his former good form. We are bound to ask ourselves at this stage, critically and seriously: What have we achieved by our intense labour on this Bill? I can say "intense labour," because your Lordships all know what a vast amount of work and interest my noble friend Lord Lucas has put into this task. I doubt whether there is anyone, even on the Ministerial side of the House, who knows more about this Bill than does the noble Lord. Certainly he has spared himself to no extent whatever in bringing his clear mind and his great experience of this problem to bear.
It is eminently satisfactory, I think, that we have got rid of that clause about "too few hands." Speaking as a fairly old Parliamentarian, and having had charge of a great many Acts of Parliament in my time. I say that I have never in my life seen such an utterly "half-baked" clause as that was. The provision that the decision as to what were "too few hands" should be left, not with the Minister, whose job it is to take a political decision, but with the Commission, was quite unparalleled, I humbly say, in its folly, in any Act of Parliament which I have ever seen. It is a striking fact, however, that to get that provision in more sensible form and shape we have had to wait until Third Reading. Fortunately, in this House we have the very valuable power to move Amendments on Third Reading. I am glad that that Amendment has been made. It was in no sense a Party political point. It was, in fact, a perfectly sound Parliamentary point, as every person who cares about the condition of the Statute Book and the elementary principles of government will realise. But I am bound to say that I think it is a matter of regret that this Bill has had that obvious blot upon it for so long.
I am very pleased at the acceptance of the suggestion which I made—though I
318
believe it was Lord Fairfax of Cameron who originally threw it out—that we should have this procedure of a preliminary canter on the proposals with regard to the railways, so that we could look at them before the Minister propounded his ultimate solution. That, again, is in no sense a Party political point. It is in accordance with what your Lordships were always telling me for many years when I occupied the position of Lord Chancellor, and I should like the noble Marquess the Leader of the House to understand plainly what I feel about it. I realise that the proposal I originally made—as a matter of fact, I raised it simply for the purpose of discussion—of having Amendments moved to a statutory instrument, is quite impracticable. We cannot make the two Houses work together on that basis. I said that at the time. I simply raised the proposal for the purpose of discussion. Where you are doing what is obviously a very important thing, namely, reorganising the railways, for a Minister to stand up, as Lord Leathers stood up, and say: "We are not going to air our views about what ought to be done about the railways what we are going to do is to get an enabling Bill, discuss it with other people, and then come here and give you a piece of paper on which is set out what we are going to do"—that, as I said, is a Parliamentary outrage; and I believe that statement to be true. I may have done worse myself in the past; I do not know; but I think it utterly wrong that such a proposal should ever have been made. The Government have seen fit to give way on this point.
When we come to points which are not Parliamentary points, but points in which Party politics are concerned, I am bound to say that we have achieved almost nothing. It is true that we have got some concession about the size of the Commission. I think it is common knowledge that the Minister had previously said to the T.U.C. that he was prepared to make that concession; consequently, we did not really need to have much debate about it here. We have had a concession about pensions. We pointed out some slight error in the Bill about pensions, which the Government were quite ready to put right. We have also got, from our point of view, this most substantial Amendment made, whereby the six-fifths of the vehicles taken over in 1948, being

319
the quantity of vehicles which the Commission were to be allowed to keep, became five-fourths. That improvement, however, was rather destroyed by the acceptance of the Amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, saying that in no particular category of the three categories mentioned—I think this is in Clause 4 at page 5—could the increase be more than thirteen-tenths. We moved an Amendment to omit the words "other motor vehicles," but we failed to get it carried. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, during the course of the discussion on that Amendment was clearly under a misapprehension. He said to the House, not once but several times, that the Commission had expressed the view that this provision was workable and they were satisfied with it. If necessary, I can turn up the quotation. It is obvious to me he was under a misapprehension.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, I was not. I have asked again about this, and I am informed that the Commission have never contended that this division into three categories was not entirely workable.
EARL JOWITT: Would the noble Viscount do me the goodness to consult the Minister about this?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have done so.
EARL JOWITT: It might be possible to do it again. I have seen a letter about it. I am not accustomed to making wild statements about these things. The Commission have expressed the view in plain terms that they are extremely dissatisfied with this arrangement about categories. What the noble Viscount said was that the Commission had expressed the view that they were satisfied. It does not follow that the Commission are right or wrong, what we have here is a pure issue of fact as to the satisfaction of the Commission with regard to this scheme. As I say, I have seen a letter, and the Commission have, as I know, expressed the view that the yare entirely dissatisfied with the scheme.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Will the noble and learned Earl permit me to intervene again for a moment? I, also, am rather careful in coming to the House and making statements. Not only did I consult the Minister, who met me throughout every stage during the proceedings,
320
but I have also consulted the Minister, and my noble friend Lord Leathers this morning, and the statement which I made to-day is, I am sure, absolutely accurate. The statement was to the effect that, so far as the practicability of the scheme goes, the Commission are satisfied that it is completely practicable. Actually, under the Bill as it stood, the Commission would have been rigidly limited in the different classes of vehicles. What Lord Teynham's Amendment did was not to restrict the power which the Bill gave the Commission, but to give them further power by giving a wider margin of tolerance. That, I am assured—and I have asked again this morning—is practicable. As regards my statement that the Commission were satisfied, I said quite clearly that the Commission would like to have far more vehicles than five-fourths, and that they would also like to be able to choose the whole of one class of vehicles. I also said—and I stand by it—that the Commission preferred, not unnaturally, to have five-fourths rather than nothing, which they had to start with, or the smaller amount which was given later, and preferred to have a wider measure of tolerance than no tolerance at all.
EARL JOWITT: There is a very remarkable difference of view about this. This Amendment, of course, has to go back to another place, and the Minister will be able to look at the matter and, in particular, will be able to look at the letter. I hope he will quote the letter which I have seen, which indicates to me plainly that the Commission are completely dissatisfied with the arrangement proposed by Lord Teynham. So, if it proves that I am right, I hope that the Amendment will be reconsidered.
With regard to the Bill as a whole, I am bound to say that the results we have achieved seem to me to be very meagre. The mountain has laboured, there is no doubt about that; but all that it has produced is a ridiculously small mouse. I entirely agree that no Opposition can expect to have Amendments on points of principle accepted. I will go further: I think no Opposition can complain if their Amendments, even on points of detail, are not accepted. The Government must govern. But what every Opposition are entitled to expect is

321
that all their Amendments shall be carefully considered and treated as serious Amendments, and that argument shall be met by counter-argument. That is the minimum—I think we shall all agree about that. Whether or not you should accept certain Amendments depends, to my mind, not on Parliamentary tactics but on different considerations altogether. In the political circumstances of to-day, I should have thought it wise in framing any legislation to consider what the consequences were likely to be, and not to trail one's coat. If there was a reasonable opportunity of compromise without giving anything away, I should have thought it was desirable to lake that opportunity in the circumstances of today. I am bound to say I cannot think that that opportunity has been taken.
Divisions in this House prove nothing at all. We all know that there is a great Conservative majority in this House, and the Government can obviously vote us down. What does matter in this House is that we shall go away satisfied that our reasoned Amendments—and we have not put them down lightly and without consideration—have been met by counter-reasons, which we may not accept but which should make us feel to ourselves that the Government had good ground for taking that line. One of my noble friends in the course of the debate—the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will remember it because he picked him up at once—said something about obstruction. That we have not done. We never have, we never shall, and we never can. That is not our tradition at all. What is likely to occur is something different and much more serious.
To tell the truth, some of us are getting rather old; and some of us have not very much money and we are bound to ask ourselves, "Is our journey really necessary?" When we come to the House on these Committee stages and find we are not going to do any good or make any alteration, it well may be that we shall gradually fade away. Your Lordships know that that is a real danger which confronts us. There it is.
For that reason I very much hoped that we should get more satisfaction. It is too early to judge on this Bill, because it is only the first of the highly controversial Bills which are being brought forward. I should be wrong not
322
to tell your Lordships that, far from being satisfied with what we have achieved, we are completely dissatisfied. We think there were ample grounds on which we might have been met. After all, the two points we sought to achieve were simply these. We accept the principle, because the Government plainly had a mandate for carrying through this Bill, but we wanted to get disposal at the best possible price—and I cannot think there can really be any conflict of interest about that, because it is the taxpayer's property which is involved and we should realise it at the best advantage. The second point was about the size of the fleet to he left to the Commission. We wanted them to be able to carry on, at any rate with the main trunk routes, though subject to competition. As it is, they are so reduced as to be quite unable to carry on trunk services or anything else efficiently.
Let me deal with the first of those two points. As I said it is the taxpayers' money which is concerned. We all want to make the levy as small as possible, if we are to have a levy. The noble Lords opposite have said that goodwill is already lost. In the balance sheet, which is signed by two of the most eminent accountants in the City of London, the goodwill stands at some £33,000,000 for the road haulage vehicles; that is said to represent a true and fair account of the companies' business, and signed in the ordinary way. I cannot accept the view that the goodwill is not there to-day. What the Government are doing about this Bill, by breaking this organisation up into a thousand parts, may well be to destroy this goodwill. But that is their deliberate act. That is why a levy has to be introduced, to make good that serious loss of goodwill. According to the poet:
"You may shatter the vase if you will, But the scent of roses will cling to it still."
It may be so in poetry but it is not so in real life. And if we shatter the Commission into a thousand pieces, the goodwill, the smell, and everything else might easily be destroyed. I can well understand that the goodwill will be destroyed, but it is there to-day.
In the first clause of the Bill, which deals with the disposal and sale of the Commission's road haulage assets, we asked that the words "as quickly as is

323
reasonably practicable" should be taken out, because, though we have no objection to doing this quickly, we do want to have regard to another factor—the doing of this efficiently. By that, I mean doing it in such a way as to get the best price. We did not like the emphasis which was placed in that first clause on speed, without some corresponding emphasis on efficiency. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, regarded that as a matter of great principle, and he so said. But the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, thought it a matter of mere detail, because he thought the principle was conceded in a later clause. If that was so, why were we not given this Amendment? But apparently the two noble Lords differ on this point. There it is, in the very forefront of this Bill the Government emphasise speed, and do not take the trouble to emphasise that the Commission should also get the best price.
I want to ask a question, to which I know I shall get a perfectly clear and categorical answer. It is being said and I am only giving voice to rumour—this is very important, and I would ask the noble Marquess who is going to reply to listen to me for a moment—that the United Dominions Trust, or some similar financial corporation, are to be placed in a privileged position. Is that so? Are the provisions of Statutory Instruments Nos. 121 and 724 going to be waived? It is being said (I myself have had people say it to me, though not allowing me to quote them) that the banks have been "tipped off" to relax credit restrictions and give credit facilities to the buyers of transport units. I thought it desirable that I should mention this rumour and get a categorical answer and, I hope, a denial of it. But if it is so—if the rumour is true—we ought to be told quite plainly that a privileged class is being created. A builder or an engineer who wants to extend his business at the present time has to face all the rigours of credit restriction. But is it to be said that by Government decree one cannot have credit facilities to extend this business or enter that trade, but that one can have the facilities if entering road haulage? If this is so, I feel, and I am sure your Lordships would agree with me, that we should be told quite plainly, so that the public
324
may know that a privileged class is being created. I very much hope that the noble Marquess will be able to give a perfectly clear and categorical answer to this question, and that his answer will be that there is no truth in this rumour which I, and I strongly suspect many of your Lordships, have heard.
I pass to the second point. Under the Bill, the Commission are allowed to operate vehicles only to the extent of some 17,000 tons. If you express that tonnage in terms of 3½-ton vehicles, you get one result; if you express it in terms of 8-ton vehicles, you get another result—a smaller result. But, however expressed, it is far too small a figure to enable the Commission to continue even their trunk service. Surely, here was a case where we might have been met. It was not as though you were destroying the Commission altogether: you are allowing them to continue in business to some extent. Certainly you allow the Commission to continue in competition although you destroy their monopoly—that is part of the scheme, and I do not question it. But why not put the Commission in a position where they can be effective competitors? Why make them go into the competition with their hands tied behind their back? Why limit them to such number of vehicles as will make it impossible for them to carry out the trunk services which have been so efficiently carried out in the past? I said the other day, and I say it again, that I think the doctrine that private enterprise is always efficient and right and that the competitive system must always be adopted, is a foolish doctrine—almost as foolish as the doctrine that public enterprise is always right; that every public enterprise is efficiently run, and that every problem is solved by nationalisation. Those are pagan gods, and sensible people should worship at neither shrine.
This is a case where an ugly and awkward fact has overthrown a preconceived theory. The fact is that the transport service run by this Commission has been an exceedingly efficient service, and for that very reason it has got to be sacrificed. The instinct of humans to sacrifice to the gods is a very old one, from Abraham to Jephthah—who in some respects resembles the noble Viscount opposite—who, in return for his victory over the children of Ammon (and I do

325
not refer to our late Chief Whip), promised to sacrifice whatever first met him on his return. What first met him on his return was his own daughter. After two months of bewailing, she had to be sacrificed. This public enterprise has had to be sacrificed, just because it has proved itself so completely efficient. There have been 2,691 columns of Hansard spoken about this Bill. Not one single instance has been given by any person speaking on behalf of the Government of any single efficiency against this organisation—save one: the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, referred to a gentleman who lived at Welwyn Garden City who had had three parcels misdelivered—and that out of a number of parcels delivered of the order of 1,500,000 a week. It is the literal fact that no endeavour has been made to prove that this has been an inefficient organisation. I maintain that, so far as the main trunk services are concerned, this has been a wonderfully efficient organisation. If your Lordships want proof of that, it is to be found in the fact that such a tremendous proportion of the vehicles are fully laden on their return journeys. We who have to use these outmoded roads in this country will find what is going to happen to us if the number of these great vehiclesis largely increased, because the same vehicle cannot be used fully laden on its return journey. I quoted before, and I do so again, what the Vice-President of the Association of British Chamber of Commerce has said—and, of course, he is in favour of private enterprise. He said:
"Experience has shown that there are services which can best be given by a larger and co-ordinated road haulage unit."
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, wound up his speech on Second Reading by quoting as the higher objective of the Bill the attainment of a properly coordinated system in which each form of transport was able to render those services which it was economically and technically best suited to do. What hope have the Government of doing that now under this new scheme? That is surrendered for ever, unless and until this Bill is repealed. The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, said in his speech that there had been little progress in integration. He never referred us to the statement, published in 1950 by the British Transport Commission, Integration of Freight
326
Services by Road and Rail. There, a complete scheme of integration is set out, which it was proposed should serve as a directive from the Commission to the Railway and the Road Haulage Executives. I wish the noble Lord had told us about that. It is quite idle to say that there were no plans for integration—there were. Under the new scheme there is no hope of integration.
There it is. We are not going to divide on the Third heading of this Bill. Your Lordships plainly have a mandate for it, and it has been discussed. However, I am bound to say that I wish I could feel happier about the whole procedure. This House—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, here—as it is constituted to-day, was of great value when we had a Labour Government. The mere fact that the greater numbers were on the opposite side made it necessary that Labour Minister; should go out of their way to conciliate and meet, and should try to deal with the arguments advanced. Do not let it be said that this House is effective only when a Labour or Liberal Government are in power. If it be the fact that we have a bicameral system only when we have a Labour or Liberal Government. and that when we have a Tory Government in power we have a single-Chamber system, then indeed, the ranks of those who desire to speak against our House will be greatly increased.
TEE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, perhaps I might answer one point that has been raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. He asked whether any privileged class had been created. That is not so. What the Treasury have done is this. They have informed the banks that they consider this—that is, the action under this Bill—a suitable subject for credit in the national interest. This is common practice, just as a particular line of business or export may get dollars.
3.29 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, if my noble and learned Leader found his speech difficult to deliver, I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that my speech will be even more difficult to deliver: first, because I am a relatively new Member of your Lordships' House, and secondly, because I have to follow someone of such outstanding importance and

327
ability as my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt. I hope it may be understood when I say, as one who has been actively associated with the transport industry from 1900 for more than half a century—a lifetime spent actively in transport work—that the passing of this Bill is to me a matter of profound regret, sorrow and disappointment. As long ago as 1918, the Association in which I took some part sponsored a Bill for the co-ordination of all forms of inland transport under public ownership. In season and out of season, responsible trade union leader sin this country have urged that the right and proper way to ensure for the trading and travelling public the best possible service and, at the same time, to maintain reasonable standards of employment, is a co-ordinated system of inland transport under public ownership. That solution became all the more urgent and pressing when, almost immediately after the end of the First World War, the railways were confronted with bitter and intensive road competition.
If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to illustrate that point by reading an addendum to the findings of the National Wages Board for March, 1931—an addendum signed not only by the trade union representatives but by two of the independent members of the tribunal, Mr. Henry May and Sir Arthur Pugh. If my recollection serves me aright, I think the railway companies were asking for a 10 per cent. reduction in wages and salaries and for an easement in conditions of service generally. This is what the addendum said:
"Whilst concurring in the findings which provide a measure of assistance for the purpose of enabling the companies to encounter the immediate difficulties, we desire at the same time to state that in our opinion this inquiry has clearly revealed the necessity for other action, in order that the industry may be in a position to provide the transport facilities desired by industry, commerce and the travelling public.…Modern requirements make further co-ordination imperative, and the present inquiry has reinforced our opinion that only along the lines of comprehensive national organisation of all forms of transport under public ownership and control can the problems of the transport industry be overcome."
More than twenty years ago, representative men with whom I was associated put that opinion on record.
328
As I ventured to say in my Second Reading speech, enlightened railway administrators, from Sir Eric Geddes in 1918, to the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, himself, in 1944, came round to that point of view. I will not trouble the noble Lord with the quotation, because I am sure that it is well in his mind. I submit to your Lordships that, broadly speaking, the 1947 Act gave expression to those conceptions of a co-ordinated system of inland transport under public ownership. I should be the last to claim that the 1947 Act was the final word; that is was not capable of amendment, adjustment and improvement. But I do submit to your Lordships that, without our departing from the fundamental principles embodied in the 1947 Act, that Act was capable of adjustment and amendment. In that connection, I should like to refer your Lordships to a remarkable paper read to the Institute of Transport on March 16, by Mr. A. J. Pearson, Chief Officer (Administration) The Railway Executive. I will quote to your Lordships his opening sentences. This is what Mr. Pearson told the Institute of Transport:
"In the years 1935 and 1945, Lord Hurcomb"—
who, owing to the working of the machine, has been unable to be here to state the facts accurately—
"recorded for the Institute of Transport, in memorable form, the developments that occurred in the co-ordination of inland transport in this country after the First World War. The outstanding trend of those developments in the twenty-five years was from unrestricted competition towards a harmony of operation of the different agencies of transport in the interests of the community. Lord Hurcomb did not conclude that harmony had been achieved, nor did he minimise the difficulties still to be faced, but he did outline the steady progress that had been made towards that goal."
This Bill completely reverses that trend of transport development. In the words used in a leading article in The Times a little while ago, it will be, with some insignificant exceptions, war to the knife between competing forms of inland transport. I recall a profound saying of Bishop Butler:
"Things and actions are what they are, and the consequences of them will be what they will be. Why then, should we deceive ourselves?"
This Bill will not bring harmony, good will and prosperity in the transport

329
world; it may well bring bitter industrial strife. I ask your Lordships to remember that wages and salaries absorb almost 70 per cent. of the net railway revenue. As a matter of fact, in 1932 the railway companies put the proportion as high as 75 per cent. With a due sense of responsibility, I say that any attempt to worsen these conditions of service must inevitably lead to a bitter struggle. Should that unfortunately arise, as a direct result of this Bill, and should there arise bitter warfare between all forms of transport, and pressure aimed at bringing down rates, at a time when the energies of us all should be concentrated on restoring economic stability to this country, then a very grave responsibility will rest upon the shoulders of those responsible for this measure. Finally, may I mention that on the morrow of the return of the Conservative Government the chairman of one of the road haulage associations claimed the fruit of victory. I would ask the road haulage interests to bear in mind that it may be that, instead of rare and refreshing fruit, the fruit of victory, as provided for the road haulage industry under this Bill, will prove to be both bitter and dangerous for them.

ARREST OF FORMER NAZI LEADERS
3.40 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (TEH: MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, intervene for a moment to make a brief statement on the subject of the present position on the Naumann proceedings?
In my statement to the House on January 28, on the detention of seven former leading Nazis by the British authorities in Germany I said that the investigation of the evidence was continuing and would take several weeks to complete. The results have now been communicated to the German Federal Chancellor, who has asked that Naumann and his associates be handed over to the German Federal authorities for investigation and prosecution by them in a German court. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has authorised the High Commissioner to comply with this request and the High Commissioner is,
330
of course, also handing over to the German authorities the seized documents and the evidence collected during the investigation. The German authorities may decide not to prosecute some of the seven men detained. In that event those not to be prosecuted will be released, but their detention and interrogation and the impounding of their documents will have provided valuable evidence for the prosecution of Naumann and his associates.
The matter will now come before the German courts, and it would not be proper for me to attempt to foretell their verdict. I think, however, that the decision now taken by Dr. Adenauer and the German Federal Government, which is welcomed by Her Majesty's Government, fully justifies the action taken by the British High Commissioner on my right honourable friend's authority in detaining these men for interrogation, under his special powers. Our intention from the beginning has been to frustrate a serious potential danger, to bring the facts to light and to enable the German authorities and the German people to form their own judgment upon them. I trust that this purpose will now be served and this important matter should, I think, at this stage be left in the hands of the German Federal Government and the German courts.
EARL JOW1TT: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Marquess one question. I suppose it is plain that the German authorities will make up their minds promptly whether they are going to prosecute any of these men. I take it that the men the authorities decide to prosecute will be handed over to the German authorities, and we wash our hands of the matter; and that the men who are not to be prosecuted will be discharged, so that we shall be out of the matter altogether.
TEE MARQUESS OF READING: Yes, my Lords, that is the position. The German authorities now have all the material which we have been able to collect. They will no doubt make up their minds, having already begun to consider the matter, in a brief space of time. Those whom they desire to prosecute will be handed over to them. The remainder will be released. In regard to them all our responsibility will be terminated.

TRANSPORT BILL
3.45 p.m.
Debate on Third Reading resumed.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I rise for only two or three minutes in consequence of something which was said by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. He referred to a scheme prepared in 1950 for the integration of the transport of this country. That scheme is now thrown aside. I was interested in this matter because last summer I attended a conference on transport, which was held in Stockholm, where for one or two days proposals were discussed for the integration for the transport of Europe. That, my Lords, is not a wildcat scheme; the discussions were most interesting. Proposals were put forward by great experts in the matter, and I do not doubt that one day such a state of affairs will come about. My hopes are encouraged by the fact that quite recently six nations of Europe decided to refer to a committee or a commission the feasibility of doing away with the customs barriers between their countries. I believe that that also will come about. If it does, it will be a great step forward and will be of great assistance in this matter of integrating the transport of Europe. Yet at a time when such a scheme is being proposed for Europe, we are taking the step of tearing up the possibility of integrating the transport of this country alone.
The industry which had much to gain by the integration of transport here was the coastal shipping industry. In the course of the lengthy debates on this Bill I have heard nothing which leads me to feel at all hopeful or clear that coastal shipping will not find itself exposed to severe and very difficult competition from the road haulage industry. I think it will be found, when the road haulage industry comes into private hands, that for a great many of those engaged in it their main business will be that of undercutting—which is not a very good outlook for coastal shipping. And although I know that it is proposed to bring in representatives of the road haulage industry to discuss these questions of competition I think—and here I believe that noble Lords on the other side will agree with me—it will be difficult to find men who can speak for the road haulage industry; that is to say, who speak for it knowing
332
that the views they express and the undertakings they give will be faithfully obeyed by all engaged in that industry.
Nor have I heard during these debates anything to alter my opinion that this is a very clumsy Bill. I give an instance—this question of a scheme prepared for the reorganisation of the railways. This Bill is like the play Hamlet: there is a play within a play. The real gravamen of the Bill is this scheme which is referred to in Clause 16, and it seemed that Parliament would have no opportunity of criticising or pronouncing upon the scheme before it was put in execution. But perhaps the announcement made by the noble Viscount means that that possibility is now at an end, and that Parliament will have an opportunity of commenting on the scheme. The fact remains, however, that I still regard this as a clumsy Bill. When I was first looking through it I came upon the words:
"abnormal and indivisible load."
I thought that those words referred to the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility as applied to this Bill—and the load, would indeed be a heavy one to bear, for I think this Bill will be found to be a very difficult one to work and that in the long run it will prove to be a setback to British Transport.
3.49 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has complained that Her Majesty's Government have been unwilling to compromise on any of the Opposition Amendments. He has also stated that he could understand that the Opposition could not expect Amendments on policy to be accepted. But surely practically all the Opposition Amendments were on matters of policy. I think that during the discussion on this Bill too much emphasis has been laid on the road haulage side. This Bill is not really a denationalisation Bill at all. It is a Railway Bill, and I think it will be a landmark in railway history. Clauses 1 and 3 will have the effect only of denationalising a very small section of the road haulage industry. The British Transport Commission will remain the largest road haulage organisation in the country. It is really rather nonsense for the Opposition to talk about integration under the 1947 Act. If the

333
"C" licence holders had been included in the Act, some sort of integration might possibly have taken place; if the passenger area schemes had become effective, something more might have been done. But, in fact, the real purposes of the 1947 Act had become almost completely nullified before it came into operation. I think it is true to say that the 1947 Act could not have remained in its present form. I maintain that the Bill which is before the House is a real attempt to produce a workable transport organisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Burden, suggested that the passage of the Bill might bring industrial strife. I would say that this is extremely unlikely. It has also been said in some quarters, as your Lordships are aware, that the loss of personnel from the Road Haulage Executive to private enterprise was due to the advent of a Tory Government. In fact, the political colour of the Government has not the slightest effect on the matter. What really matters, of course, is the condition of employment in the industry. I would say that this Bill produces the first really workable organisation for transport that has ever been produced, and I have every confidence that it will become a success.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask one brief question on the White Paper and the draft Order which, of course, is particularly applicable to Scotland, and in which we in Scotland are therefore most interested. Did I understand the noble Viscount to say that he would produce a White Paper; that then there would be a discussion on the White Paper; and that, subsequent to the discussion, he would introduce his draft Order? I take it that the Order will be the final thing, that the draft Order will not be capable of being amended, and that he will not withdraw the draft Order after discussion and bring in a revised one, as, on Committee stage, he told me he would.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There really must he some finality in this business. It cannot go on for ever and ever. What is going to happen is that there will be a White Paper, which will set out in full detail the whole of the scheme. That will then be debated in both Houses. No draft Order will have been laid at that time. Then the Minister, having considered all that has been said in debate
334
in both Houses, will table the draft Order, which will be debatable, and will be debated in both Houses before the Affirmative Resolution is taken.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: But it cannot be amended?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No; of course, it cannot be amended. Even the Leader of the Opposition has admitted that that would be a perfectly impossible procedure.
3.54 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Loris, it falls to my lot to speak the last words on this Bill from this side of your Lordships' House. Before I address myself to the few observations I intend to make, may I join with my noble and learned Leader in a very personal sense in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, back into harness? I happen to know that he spent a few brief days of recuperation in the sunshine of the Hampshire coast where I should think the only thing he had to worry about was to read his daily edition of Hansard. Why he did not spend his lime doing what all prominent Cabinet Ministers are supposed to do—that is, read the latest "thriller"—I do not know. I am certain that, when he read the daily editions of Hansard, he must have been amazed at some of the statements which emanated from those who had care of his Bill during his absence.
I am not going to traverse very much the ground that has already been traversed this afternoon, because this is not the last time that we shall debate transport in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, accused us on this side of the House of "nonsense," and then followed that up by saying that, in his opinion, the Bill now before your Lordships was the first real attempt to put the transport of this country to rights. But if that is not nonsense, I do not know what is; because, if ever there was a Bill brought in by any Government that put the clock back thirty years it is this Bill. It is an admission by the Government that they cannot face the problem of the inland transport of the country. It is an admission by the Government that they have not applied themselves to thinking about it. Their only attempt to face up to the problem is to create cut-throat

335
competition, and to hope that some result will arise from the battlefield that we knew so well in the 1930's. They are trying to deal with the transport problem of this country by sectional legislation. They might just as well try to segregate the iron and steel industry, and have an iron industry and a steel industry, as to try to segregate road and rail transport on the main trunk routes of this country. They know that it cannot be done.
It has often occurred to me to wonder why, if the Government are such lovers of competition as they say they are, they have never tried to denationalise the railways. Why did they not hand the railways back to private enterprise? Why did they not have an all-out competition, a real "free for all," and go back to the fifty different railway companies which we knew so many years ago? Why did they not do that? That would appear to be the logical sequence to their policy. But I suppose what they said was: "There is no queue of buyers for the railways." There was, at one time, a queue of buyers for the road haulage assets, but time, I am afraid, has damped their ardour. No: frankly, this Bill is about the worst piece of legislation I ever remember in my experience of politics.
It is a strange thing that truth will out, even in a Government White Paper. The Government knew the chaos they were going to bring about because they said in that White Paper that they must have a levy to recompense the railways for what they were going to lose by this great increase in road transport. What they did was to give up half the levy, and then they were supposed to give the railways freedom. As I have said before, I am not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. They have gone a long way. I am not going to deny that what they have done is a step in the right direction. But if the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, had been sitting in your Lordships' House during the Committee stage, he would have seen the attempts made by noble Lords opposite to nibble and nibble away that freedom. He would have seen them nibble away a little bit here, and a little bit there, and put another shackle around the freedom of the Transport Commission in relation to charges. Now I see that the Association of British
336
Chambers of Commerce have asked publicly that the man who puts his goods on rail shall have as much right to protest against unfair rates and unfair treatment as the man who is "tied" to the rail and who, quite rightly, has that right in the Bill to-day. My Lords, the nibble is going on. As my noble friend Lord Winster has just said, coastal shipping interests have the right of appeal to the Tribunal about unfair treatment by the railways. Have they any right to complain to the Tribunal about unfair competition by road haulage?—oh dear, no! Why not? What is this so-called freedom? I am afraid we shall find that out.
I ask, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, what does Clause 16 do? The Government have been in power long enough to ask the Commission to submit a scheme for the reorganisation of the railways. What is going to happen? The scheme is to be submitted to every vested interest in the country—all the nibblers and people who want now to contract this new freedom of competition. Then it will come to your Lordships' House, and I should imagine that we may perhaps see a scheme for the reorganisation of the railways in two years' time. What is going to happen in the meantime?
Then there are the financial provisions. What is the real basis of the financial provisions in this Bill? Nobody has yet explained them. I had a good deal to say about this matter on the Committee and Report stages. As my noble and learned Leader has said, throughout the passage of this Bill we have fought to protect the interests of the taxpayer. For the last time, I am going to say quite bluntly to noble Lords opposite that it is just nonsense to talk about goodwill worth £33 million having been lost. It is there. The way in which it will be lost is by a forced sale. That £33 million purchased the monopoly. This Bill is breaking the monopoly. If the monopoly is broken, then the £33 million will be broken. But I tell the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, that the loss in regard to the monopoly right and the real value of the physical assets of the Commission as a result of their being sold below true value will fall upon the Commission, and the gain will go into the pockets of those who buy the assets. Noble Lords on this side of the House

337
have protested about the formation and personnel of the Disposal Board. We made strenuous efforts to got one independent member appointed to the Board after consultation by the Minister with the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales. That was one Amendment which my noble friend put forward but which met with a stubborn refusal.
So, my Lords, we come to the end. We are going to see what noble Lords opposite have called a "fruitful partnership in some aspects of the Transport Commission's undertaking between the road passenger business and private enterprise. Fruitful to whom? Who is going to run the un remunerative routes? In the White Paper the Government admit as plainly as can be admitted that there can be no real basis of competition between the public transporter who has to give a public service and has to absorb fluctuations in demand, and the private enterprise transporter who "creams" the traffic as he will. You cannot have competition in those circumstances. The noble Lord knows that. What are we going to have in the future when the British Transport Commission want to close down a branch line for economic reasons? In the forty-odd bus companies which are now controlled100 per cent. by the British Transport Commission they will have only a minority interest, as a result of the Minister directing that they shall sell all but their minority interest holdings. Therefore, they will have no direction of policy enabling them to fill the gap caused by the shutting down of a branch railway line. Are we going to see a repetition all over the country of the practice now obtaining in the West Highlands and Islands of Scotland, of private enterprise being subsidised by the Government in order to run unprofitable services? That is exactly what it will come to. It is no use going over all the old arguments, bit this is what we foresee.
My Lords, there is one question I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Leathers. I do not expect an answer now. One striking thing throughout the debate has been that the only argument for the Commission has been put up by noble Lords on this side of the House. It is only when they have spoken that the Commission's case has been stated at all.
338
There has been no advocate for the British Transport Commission on the other side of the House, and especially on the Government Bench.
LORD HAWKE: Would the noble Lord tell us how we are to ascertain the views of the British Transport Commission?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In the same way as we do—by asking them, and responding to the invitation given by the Minister in another place. That is how we get our information. We on this side of the House have no source of information which is not open to noble Lords sitting on the Back Benches opposite, and noble Lords sitting on the Government Front Bench have far more opportunity of gaining information than we have. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who led for the Government all the way through the passage of this Bill, was a self-constituted prosecuting counsel, judge, and foreman of the jury against the Commission. Now that the Commission is launched into this sea of competition perhaps we in this House shall have a Government spokesman who will state the case fairly. Let me give the Minister in another place his due. Throughout the debate in another place the Minister was at great pains to be scrupulously fair to the British Transport Commission, and to a marked degree he succeeded.
LORD TEYNHAM: May I ask the noble Lord whether he can repeat anything which was said at any time during the passage of this Bill through this House which supports the contention that the Transport Commission have not been given a fair deal. I can think of nothing which does.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes: the criticisms that were made about the Commission's services. There were criticisms made about its services and statements were made about "frittering away goodwill", and a number of other things.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Did not the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, say that there was no criticism except in one particular instance?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: There was no direct criticism—that was what the noble Earl said.
LORD TEYNHAM: The suggestion is made of unfair criticism.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: All we have heard are wild generalisations, and only one specific case was brought to your Lordships' notice throughout the passage of this Bill through this House. That case related to three or four parcels which were despatched by someone at Welwyn Garden City, someone who thought it would be of political advantage to write to the Minister here instead of writing to the Transport Commission, with the result that the letter found its way into the hands of the noble Viscount. As I say, what we have heard have been wild generalisations—such as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has made this afternoon about integration—and only one specific case has been quoted. The noble Lord got up and purported to reply to my noble friend about the charge relating to the efficiency of the British Transport Commission, and he said there had been no integration at all. Perhaps, in future we shall have something different. I think we shall have something different in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Leathers. I think he would follow the example of the Minister in another place and see, at least, that justice is done; because it may be that the British Transport Commission, in this matter, is going to prove the salvation of the transport system of this country.
The noble Lord is launching on the country this auction sale and chattel disposal scheme at what could not be a worse time. I feel very sorry for him about that. The market is about as bad as it can be. There are £10 million worth of new vehicles coming into the possession of the British Transport Commission, because they do not want to cancel the orders and so cause chaos in the producing factories in this country. I believe that some £8 million worth of vehicles are to be delivered to the British Transport Commission in the next twelve months. And I believe that prices are not going to be what the noble Lord thinks they will be. One of the noble Lord's "bull-points" was that in order to help this sale the 25-miles radius is going to be retained for another eighteen months. My information is that the 25-miles radius has practically gone already; progressively it will go—it is honoured to-day more in the breach
340
than in the observance—and chaos is going to rule. So let us hope—and in this the noble Lord will have all the assistance that can possibly be given from this side of the House—that in the fierce, competitive system which is going to be established this nationally-owned body will be given every chance to prosper. Let us hope that by reason of its efficiency it will stand a fair chance and will benefit the taxpayers and the business and industry of this country.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I say this. I noticed that the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, and said that they were against this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said more or less the same thing—
EARL JOWITT: Forgive me, I never said that. They are very much in favour of this Bill. What I said was that they had never expressed the opinion that the services rendered by the Transport Commission were inefficient.
LORD TEVIOT: I beg the noble and learned Earl's pardon, I must have misunderstood him. But the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, did say that there was adverse criticism of the Bill by the A.B.C.C. I happen to be, as the noble Lord has mentioned, the honorary treasurer of the A.B.C.C. While, at the beginning of the investigations into this Bill, apprehensions were felt by the investigators for the A.B.C.C., they have now definitely come round to the view that this is a good Bill, and they are most grateful to the Minister for having met them in a great many ways. I want that on record, because I do not want there to be any misapprehension in the public mind as to the attitude of the A.B.C.C.—they are not against this Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What I said was this. I said that only within recent days the Association of British Chambers of Commerce have come out with a public statement asking that those who send their goods by rail should have as much protection in the future as those whose goods are tied to the rail, and that the Minister should safeguard the position with regard to any

341
possibility of the Commission abusing its competitive powers. That was what I said.
4.17 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this Third Reading debate unless it was absolutely necessary; for, as your Lordships know, I have had to be away during a large part of the time when this Bill has been passing through your Lordships' House. I am certainly not rising this afternoon to reiterate arguments of a general kind, with which the House is probably already familiar, about the step which the Government are taking. Those arguments have been dealt with by other speakers, with far more knowledge of the subject than I have, again and again, earlier in your Lordships' discussions. But one point has been raised this afternoon—it was made by the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition and also, I think, by other speakers—about which it is clear that the Leader of the House should say something. This point was actually made earlier in the passage of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, just after I came back, and it may well be that it had been made many times still earlier than that.
The suggestion as I understand it—I do not want to misrepresent noble Lords opposite—is, in effect, that the House of Lords is a revising Chamber only when the Labour Party are in office; that when the Conservative Party are in office, it is merely a rubber stamp. That, as I understand it, is the suggestion. When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, first say this, with considerable fire and eloquence, it seemed to me that he was giving an entirely distorted account of the position. I felt it was not one which should be allowed to go without some reply. For, if I may be allowed to say so, the impression which it created on this House—and possibly, on wider circles outside this House—was that the Labour Government, unlike the present Government, were open-minded and very ready to accept Amendments, however far-reaching those might be. I therefore had inquiries made, and this is what I found—and I would confine myself entirely to the question of transport, the two Transport Bills, as that is the subject which is under discussion this afternoon. These are the results of
342
my investigations. During the passage of the Transport Bill which was introduced in 1947 by the late Government, there were, indeed, as is always the case—particularly when a Bill passes rather rapidly through the House of Commons—a considerable number of Amendments on points which had hardly been discussed at all; and Amendments to deal with those points were inserted, I think, by agreement between both Parties in this House.
There were also certain major points of policy on which the Opposition disagreed with the Government, and these questions were ultimately submitted to Divisions in the Lobbies. Those points, which were incorporated in a large number of Amendments, were finally concentrated in ten which were sent down to another place. What happened to those Amendments when they got there—those Amendments, which noble Lords opposite said were inserted by a revising House? They were one and all rejected, at the demand of then Government. Then the Bill came back to this House, in accordance with our Constitution. This House is always a sensible place, whichever Party are in office, and on that occasion the Conservative Opposition decided not to insist on four of these Amendments; and, in the case of four others, substitute Amendments were inserted to give the other place a chance of further consideration. Of the remaining two, on one the Opposition accepted the substitute Amendment inserted in another place, and the other was not insisted on. Further, in addition to those Amendments, on which there had been Divisions, there were five other Amendments which were inserted in the Bill without a Division. All these five were struck out of the Bill by the Labour Party in another place.
That is the record of noble Lords opposite with regard to the revising powers of this Horse, as evidenced in their Transport Bill of 1947. They could not prevent some revision being done here, because, as your Lordships know, the their Opposition had a majority in this House; but in another place they voted down every disputed point of any real substance. I am not complaining of that. I know—and the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition knows—that many Amendments put down by an Opposition are regarded by

343
the Government of the day as of so fundamental a character that, in our parlance, they would "wreck" the Bill. And in such cases the Government of the day always insists on its own views. I am not complaining of that. But it hardly accords with the rosy picture of the actions of the last two Labour Governments painted by the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Now, for a moment, I should like to say something about the record of the present Government over the present Bill. We have accepted a certain number of Amendments. I am not going to pretend that we have accepted an enormous number, but we have accepted about eight of some substance which were proposed by the Opposition. I understand that to be the position, and I have a list of them here, including some on issues of considerable importance. There was the question of "too few hands," to which the noble and learned Earl referred earlier. I am not saying that he was wrong. All that I am saying is that we accepted his view on what the Opposition considered to be an important point; and it has been accepted by the Government. There was also the point that the railway reorganisation scheme should be submitted in a preliminary form to Parliament. I myself heard the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, press this point, because I was here by then. The noble Earl urged this strongly as something of almost vital importance. I do not say that I altogether agreed with him; but the Government have met him. It is surely a little ungracious now for the noble Earl to say that we did nothing to meet the points raised by the Opposition, especially as there was no provision at all in the Labour Government's Act for putting such schemes before Parliament.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, will the noble Marquess forgive me? He will find that I did not say that. I stated that on these Parliamentary points the Government had met us, but that on points where there was a clash of Party points of view they had not met us on any single important Amendment made from this side.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl said—and he has just said so again—that what we might
344
call technical points had had no consideration. I repudiate that absolutely. The points raised by noble Lords opposite had the fullest consideration, and I think that is an unworthy aspersion. The fact that a point is not accepted does not mean that it is not considered. What I have said about the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, I would say equally about other speeches that we have heard this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, seemed to hug a rather gloomy hope that the passing of this Bill would herald the arrival of violent industrial struggle. He may be right. I should be prepared to have a small bet with him on the subject, but he may be right. I cannot, however, feel that that portion of his speech was very happy or helpful to the interests of the country, and I am sorry that these views should have been expressed in this House this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, with equally gloomy gusto, prognosticated a disastrous future for the whole industry of transport in this country. He said that this was the worst piece of legislation he ever remembered. I seem to remember that tremendous phrase used about almost every piece of legislation that has been introduced by this Government since we were fortunate enough to be chosen by the electorate to represent them. No doubt it makes a very good Party line, and no doubt, too, the noble Lord is going off at the week-end to repeat it on a platform to whatever audience he can find. But it would be a good deal more convincing if it were made in the light of experience. Like the late Liberal Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, I am very ready to wait and see about that.
Moreover, with regard to the Amendments which have been inserted by the Government, to two of which I have already referred, I should like to repeat that undoubtedly they were of substance. And I understand, from what was said on the subject by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition and others, that these Amendments are vital to the success of the Bill. That may be so, and I hope and think that, when they go down to another place, they will be accepted. At any rate, I hope they will have a much better reception there than our Amendments had in the days of the late Government. But if noble Lords who have spoken here this afternoon really meant to argue—I hope they did not; I

345
do not expect they did—that the Government should accept all the Amendments moved by the Opposition of this House, however fundamental they might he, however disastrous they might appear to us to the future of the Bill, merely because the Opposition here are in a minority and, therefore, deserve special consideration—if they meant that, I could not accept it, and no Government could accept it.
EARL JOWITT: I do not admit any such thing. It is ridiculous.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very glad to hear it. And now, my Lords, the last thing I want to say is that when these two Transport Bills are compared in times to come, when our successors and descendants come to examine the Opposition Amendments proposed to the Bill introduced by the Labour Government and the Opposition Amendments proposed to the Bill introduced by the Conservative Party, I do not think we shall have the worst of the argument by any means.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, before the noble Marquess sits down, may I say that I thought he was going to complete his list of the eight Amendments accepted. He mentioned two, and I thought he was going to mention the other six. I cannot recollect them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The first point to which I referred dealt with the undertaking on the railway reorganisation scheme order. The second was the Amendment about the maximum number of the Commission, inclusive of the chairman. That was passed before I came back, but I understand it was a point made by the Opposition. Then there was the Amendment to safeguard the pension rights of the Commission's employees, even if they were moved to a lower grade.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That was merely a matter of drafting.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord may say that, but it was one that he proposed and one that we accepted. There was the proposal that annual financial statements required of the British Transport Commission road haulage companies should be so framed
346
as to prevent them from being forced to disclose information of value to competitors.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is a very minor one.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I may say so, what noble Lords opposite seem to want is to have their grouse and eat it. Further, there is the Amendment under which the power of the Commission to incorporate road haulage companies was made permanent. There is the Amendment about "too few hands," to which I nave already referred. Then there is the Amendment about Disposal Board rep arts to set out any Ministerial directions—that again was discussed before I came back, and I am afraid that I cannot amplify it. Those are the main Amendments to which I referred. I frankly admit that some of them are less important, and others are more important—that applies to all Amendments. But there were some points of considerable substance over which my noble friend Lord Swinton took great trouble to meet the Opposition—the results of some of them have been announced to-day. I repeat, I do not think it was very gracious of the Opposition, in the circumstances, to suggest now that no attempt has been made to meet them.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 3:
Sales of transport units
(6) In determining which tenders for transport units are to be accepted and which refused, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding the ownership or control of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking being concentrated in too few hands.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this is the first of the Amendments to which I referred when I spoke earlier on the Third Reading, relating to the "too few hands." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, leave out from ("avoiding") to the end of line 17, and insert:
("any step which is likely to lead to the elimination of undue restriction of competition in the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward, but no such tender shall be refused

347
wholly or mainly on the ground that it is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of such competition as aforesaid without the consent of the Minister").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Transfer of property to companies with a view to the sale of their shares
(2) Where any property is made over to a company under subsection (1) of this section it shall be made over at a price equal to the net value thereof as shown in the books of the Commission (but adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the making over thereof so far as not already taken into account), increased by the value, if any, as so shown, of any rights of the Commission made over therewith, and decreased by the value, if any, as so shown, of any liabilities of the Commission made over therewith.
In this subsection "net value" means value after deducting depreciation, and the references to values shown in the books of the Commission are references to the values so shown after making, if the Commission, in making up their books for the year nineteen hundred and fifty-two or any subsequent year, depart to any substantial extent from the principles and practice applied by them for the years falling before the year nineteen hundred and fifty-two, all adjustments which are necessary to produce the result which would have been produced but for the departure.
(4) In determining whether any tender or offer for the shares of any such company as aforesaid is to be accepted or refused, the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding the ownership or control of the property held by the Commission for the purposes of the existing road haulage undertaking being concentrated in too few hands.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to add to the second paragraph of subsection (2)
"and the requirement that the net value shall be adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of the making over of the property shall be construed as a requirement that the additional depreciation shall be allowed at the rates at which, and in the cases in which, depreciation was allowed under the said principles and practice."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a little more than drafting; it is really for clarification. The provision in the Bill requires a system of ascertaining net book value for property made over to the company, so as to take into account depreciation up to the time of making over, in so far as it has not already been taken into account. That might have been interpreted as requiring an assessment of depreciation in respect of
348
property which either is not usually subject to depreciation in the books of the Commission—like buildings—or a reassessment of depreciation where the rates allowed have proved inadequate, having regard to the actual wear and tear of the particular property. That is not what was intended. Our intention was that in a broken period depreciation should be assessed in the way in which the Commission had hitherto assessed it, if it was a case where they had, in fact, provided for depreciation. The words at page 9, line 13, will make it perfectly clear that that is the intention. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 13, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this is a complementary Amendment similar to that to Clause 3, to apply where it is a case of sale of shares in a company. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert ("any step which is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of competition in the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward, but no such tender or offer shall be refused wholly or mainly on the ground that it is likely to lead to the elimination or undue restriction of such competition as aforesaid without the consent of the Minister").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Disposal of property otherwise than in transport units]:
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 7, leave out the second ("the").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule [Meaning of "Road Haulage Capital Loss"]:
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 46, leave out ("and").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think I need hardly say that this is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 46, leave out the first ("and").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment to carry out in the Schedule the complementary provisions to those which the House has just accepted as Amendments to Clauses 3 and 5. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 7, at end insert ("and the requirements that the net values shall be adjusted so as to take into account depreciation up to a particular time shall he construed as requirements that the additional depreciation shall be allowed at the rates at which, and in the cases in which, depreciation was allowed under the said principles and practice.").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

POST OFFICE BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order), on re-commitment of the Bill: the Amendments made by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills agreed to.

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON BILL
Reported, with amendment.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
5.30 p.m.
The following Bills and Measure received the Royal Assent:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2),

Royal Titles,

Diocesan Stipends Funds Measure.

House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.