Sitting of 26 January 1954

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

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Royal Parks (Cameras)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Works if he is aware that visitors to London are forbidden to take personal photographs in the Royal Parks by means of a camera mounted on a tripod although the use of a hand camera is permitted; and if he will amend this regulation.
    The Minister of Works (Sir David Eccles): The taking of photographs with a stand camera is not forbidden in the Royal Parks, but a permit is required. The purpose of this old regulation is to help in the control of commercial photography. I am considering, as part of a general review of parks regulations, how this control could be maintained without interference with amateur photographers.
    Mr. Dodds: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for agreeing to look at the matter again, but does he appreciate that it is a bit of a nuisance for visitors to have to apply for permits? Is he aware that many commercial people have applied for permits and have gained admission very easily, so that what he seeks to avoid is not prevented by this method?
    Sir D. Eccles: The matter does want looking at again.

    Factory Building
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Works the value of factory building authorised in 1953; and what was the value of work completed.
    Sir D. Eccles: The value of factory building licensed in 1953 was £170,072,000. I am unable to give the contract value of factory buildings completed during the year. The amount of
    1578
    work done during the year is estimated, on the basis of the figures for the first 11 months, at £111 million.
    Sir I. Fraser: Does the value of the work accomplished compare favourably with the amount of work held up or refused? Can it be said that industry generally has got more or less what it wants?
    Sir D. Eccles: Licences for factories are not now being held up. The manufacturer has, of course, to go to the Board of Trade and clear the distribution of industry procedure.

    Whitehall Offices (Open Fires)
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that raw bituminous coal is burned in the grates in the offices of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in Whitehall and that a serious nuisance thereby occurs; and what steps he proposes to take in order to abate this nuisance.
    Sir D. Eccles: Bituminous coal is the most suitable fuel for the remaining open grates in Government offices, Great George Street. Modernisation of the heating services in the building is in progress, and by the end of 1957 the use of open fires should have ceased.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread feeling against smoke pollution in various parts of this country? Does he think it will encourage local authorities to proceed with their ideas of providing smokeless zones when the Government of the day were not prepared to show them some example by way of improving conditions in London, as during the fog or "smog" last year?
    Sir D. Eccles: Out of 987 rooms, only 172 are left with open grates, and they are only suitable for burning ordinary coal. If we were to provide "Coalite," we should have to pay nearly double for it, and I think the best thing is to get on with changing the system.

    Requisitioned Property, Scotland
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Works to give figures to show what reduction there has been over the last 12 months in the amount of requisitioned property held by his Department

    1579
    in Scotland; and whether he will forecast the date by which all such property will have been returned to its owners.
    Sir D. Eccles: During the last 12 months, the total area of buildings and land derequisitioned by my Department in Scotland was 186,128 square feet and 243 acres, respectively. I am anxious to release all requisitioned property held by my Department, but I cannot yet say by what date the process will be completed.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Would my right hon. Friend care to make a guess at the date? Will it be in a year's time, or two years, or how soon?
    Sir D. Eccles: I think the only useful information that I can give to my hon. and gallant Friend is that I hope that a further 180,000 sq. ft. and a further 180 acres will be released this year. There are now nearly 400,000 sq. ft. and 790 acres left on requisition, so that we are getting on.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that many of the offices occupied by his Department in Edinburgh are in a type of building which is now becoming vacant, and that a great many of these places are empty? Is he not aware that it might be a considerable waste to build new buildings in order to vacate property which will become empty and simply an eyesore to the public?
    Sir D. Eccles: If the right hon. Gentleman will let me have details of empty office buildings in Edinburgh, I should be much obliged.

    Carlton House Terrace (Use)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Works whether he will reconsider the decision to acquire the whole of Carlton House Terrace for rebuilding as a new Foreign Office; and whether, in view of the fact that it has now been found practical to rebuild as flats and other premises without altering the Nash front, he will so develop it himself or dispose of the site to a commercial enterprise who will.
    Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir; the Foreign Office needs a new building near Whitehall. As regards the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion about flats, the Commissioners of Crown Lands, who own the site, consider, and I agree, that the best use for the site would be as offices.
    Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that this decision was entered into at a time when it was thought that it was impracticable to do anything with this building commercially without pulling down the front? Surely it has now been found practicable to alter the building and make proper commercial use of it, and is it not therefore absurd to have one of the most valuable sites in the world occupied by rows and rows of clerks opening unceasing telegrams?
    Sir D. Eccles: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is now accepted that this building could be used commercially. I do not think it could. In any case, the Foreign Office is scattered about London now, and it would be greatly to the advantage of their work if we could concentrate them in one place.
    Mr. Assheton: Am I right in understanding the Minister to say that it is intended to pull down Carlton House Terrace?
    Sir D. Eccles: The façade will be preserved.

    Condemned Trees, Kensington Gardens
    Mr. F. Macleanasked the Minister of Works how many elms in Kensington Gardens have been cut down; how many are to be cut down; what steps are taken to ensure that a tree is dangerous or diseased before it is cut down; and what steps have been taken in the past and are being taken now to replace condemned trees.
    Sir D. Eccles: I would refer my hon. Friend to my replies of 14th July, 1953, to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) and of 1st December, 1953, to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams). Out of about 4,000 trees in Kensington Gardens, some 400 elms have been or are shortly to be felled. Advice on the trees was obtained from the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, and Edinburgh, and from the Department of Forestry at Oxford University. The rotten state of the trees which have been felled has fully confirmed what the experts told me. It may be that in the past more replanting should have been done. In future, this work will be carried out continuously.
    Mr. Maclean: Is it not a fact that a fairly high proportion of the trees that were cut down proved to be perfectly sound on inspection?
    Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir.

    Westminster Hall (Concerts)
    Sir R. Aclandasked the Minister of Works whether, in the light of experience gained at the concert held in Westminster Hall on 17th December, he can see his way to arranging or permitting a few further concerts during the present year; and whether some of these might be on Mondays or other days when the House is sitting.
    Sir D. Eccles: The Christmas carols which were sung in Westminster Hall by the Board of Trade choir gave great pleasure. I am ready to allow, in consultation with the other authorities of the Palace of Westminster, one or two more concerts during the year.
    Sir R. Acland: Do you appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that it was largely owing to the presence of your son in the choir that the singing was of such a high order?

    Trafalgar Square (Trading Licences)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Works how many licences he has granted to sell bird food and take photographs in Trafalgar Square.
    Sir D. Eccles: There are two licences in force for corn-selling and six for photography.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does not the Minister think that he ought to remove the shackles of monopoly and allow a little competition in the matter?
    Sir D. Eccles: It appears to satisfy both the pigeons and the public.

  ATOMIC ENERGY

    Development
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Works if he will now make a further statement on recent advances in the development of the uses of atomic energy for peaceful purposes.
    Sir D. Eccles: I have at present nothing to add to the very full statement made
    1582
    by my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council in another place on 14th December, 1953; but it will be my aim to keep the House informed of our progress in this matter.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister say whether atomic energy is yet practicable for the propulsion of ships, particularly fishing trawlers? That was not dealt with in the statement in another place.
    Sir D. Eccles: I cannot answer that without notice.
    Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman make any announcement about the projected atomic energy breeder station in the North of Scotland? Has he any idea when a decision will be reached about this important project?
    Sir D. Eccles: When a decision is reached, a statement will be made to the House, and I hope it will not be too long before that happens.

    Uranium and Thorium Supplies
    Mr. R. Harrisasked the Minister of Works what survey has been made of the quantities of economically recoverable uranium and thorium in this country and in the colonial overseas countries; how much has already been utilised; what is the estimated consumption for the next 12 months; and what is the cost per pound of extracted material.
    Sir D. Eccles: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on 9th November, 1953, in respect of survey work in the United Kingdom; and to that given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) on 10th December, 1952, in respect of Northern Rhodesia. Surveys of other colonial territories have been made, but no deposits have yet been discovered which would justify mining at the present time. I regret that it would not be in the public interest to give any figures of utilisation or cost.
    Mr. Harris: Who is responsible for carrying out the surveys now? Is it the Ministry of Works, the new Atomic Energy Corporation, or some United Nations body?
    Sir D. Eccles: At the present time the Lord President of the Council is the Minister responsible.

    Security Procedure, Risley
    Mr. W. Griffithsasked the Minister of Works what disciplinary action has been or will be taken against Security Officer Smith arising from this officer's conduct of inquiries about employees at his Department's establishment at Risley, Lancashire.
    Sir D. Eccles: Complaints about this officer have been fully examined. It is clear that in the course of his investigations he made certain errors. For these he has already been reprimanded.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this particular case was not an isolated one? Is he aware that another security officer—and this is why I asked the Question about disciplinary action in this case—who was investigating the conduct of a woman executive officer in the Civil Service made inquiries of her newsagent as to what papers she read and of her trades people to find out whether she owed them any money? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, if his attention is drawn to information of this kind, he will take the strongest action against these security officers?
    Sir D. Eccles: I shall be very glad to convey to my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council any information which the hon. Member will give to me.
    Mr. W. Griffithsasked the Minister of Works how many security questionnaires have been completed by employees at the Risley establishment; what percentage of the total remain to be screened; and in how many cases further investigation or action has been found necessary.
    Sir D. Eccles: The agreed security procedure is in operation at the Risley establishment as at other establishments of the Department of Atomic Energy. The hon. Member will appreciate that it is not in the public interest that details of this work should be disclosed.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that a very large number of people working in these establishments strongly object to this procedure,
    1584
    and that their trade unions are very worried about the procedure? Unless he can convince the House of the usefulness of this procedure, why on earth should this invasion of private citizens' rights continue?
    Sir D. Eccles: All these people know that they are working on very secret processes, and they must realise that it is the duty of the Government to take steps to keep that information secret.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it due to the secrecy of this information that the Minister is not aware that atomic energy is now being used in the propulsion of submarines? Why, then, cannot it be applied to trawlers?
    Sir D. Eccles: I said that I would look into that question. All these men are in touch with secret information which would be of benefit to those who wish to pry into our secrets.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Scottish Port Workers (Transfers)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Labour how many Scottish port workers have been transferred from port to port in Scotland to facilitate the loading and discharge of vessels; which ports were involved; what are the figures for each; how many of such port workers were on a daily basis; how many on a period basis; if he will state the amount of time saved by this arrangement of transfers; and what is the net effect on efficiency, costs and wages.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): As the reply to the first part of the Question contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate them in the Official Report. With regard to the remainder of the Question, I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. and learned Member on 27th October last.
    Mr. Hughes: Has not the operation of this scheme, which was introduced by the previous Government, greatly improved relations between those who actually do the work and those who employ them to do it?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes Sir; I think it is going very well.
    Following are the figures:

    Transfers between Scottish Ports between 23rd November, 1953 and 16th January, 1954

    Port

    Daily Transfers

    In

    Out

    Ayr

    —

    138

    Troon

    19

    53

    Irvine

    58

    59

    Ardrossan

    199

    19

    Greenock

    —

    643

    Glasgow*

    678

    7

    Aberdeen

    —

    147

    Dundee

    726

    181

    Tayport

    229

    —

    Methil

    486

    295

    Kirkcaldy

    183

    371

    Burntisland

    19

    838

    Grangemouth

    247

    625

    Bo'ness

    77

    505

    Leith

    992

    32

    Total

    3,913

    3,913

    * In addition to the figures quoted there were 5,827 daily transfers between the five different sectors within the Port of Glasgow. There were no transfers on a period basis during the weeks in question.

    Hotel Workers (Colour Bar)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Labour what approaches have been made to his Department's employment exchanges by the management of a West-End hotel, of which he is aware, during the last 12 months for kitchen and other staffs; if he is aware that the management have insisted that they will not take coloured people; and what was the nature of the reply given by his officers.
    Mr. Watkinson: I am aware that at least one hotel in the West End of London will not engage coloured workers in a few occupations. This hotel makes regular use of the employment exchange service which, in accordance with general practice, takes note of employers' special requirements.
    Mr. Lewis: Is that the Green Park Hotel, which operates the colour bar against visitors? Are we to take it that the Green Park Hotel do not allow any coloured workers to do the menial jobs in the kitchen? Do they insist that they will not take on any coloured workers? Can we have some further explanation?
    Mr. Watkinson: It is not for me to pronounce on individual cases but to make it plain that the employment exchange service of the Ministry of Labour does not exercise any discrimination on grounds of race or colour.
    Mr. Lewis: What happens if a coloured worker is inadvertently sent to this hotel and the management refuse? What advice does the Minister give to the management about taking on staff?
    Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to put that question down.

    Industrial Relations
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the number of workers who are awaiting the results of wage applications made on their behalf by their respective trade unions and the growing industrial unrest that is being experienced in industry generally; and what plans the Government have to bring about a reduction in the cost of living and thereby peace in industry.
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are aware that important wage negotiations are in progress. We are confident that the employers' and workers' representatives concerned are fully conscious of their responsibilities and will take full account of the national interest.
    We are also aware that industrial unrest can most successfully be avoided by effective joint negotiation. As hon. Members know, much is being quietly achieved in this field. During 1953, the cost of living has been steadier—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—than in any recent year and, indeed, the index number of food prices has shown a decline in the past few months. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] May I get on? But the cost of living is not the only factor which enters into industrial negotiations, although it is important that the facts should be known to the parties about this as about all other relevant matters. It is my right hon. and learned Friend's hope, and that of Her Majesty's Government, that, with good will from all concerned, fair settlements will be arrived at that will ensure the maintenance of normal close and friendly relations in industry. Such

    1587
    relations are essential if we are to attain higher levels of productivity and efficiency.
    Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister honestly, sincerely and truly believe that statement that his officials have given him? If so, will he go out and meet some of the workers and the trade union leaders, and particularly housewives, because they will tell him that he has got all his facts and figures wrong and that the price of food is continually rising. [Hon. Members: "No."] That is the reason for this Question. Will he consult with the Trades Union Congress to get some correct facts on the position?
    Mr. Watkinson: This is a very important matter, and I hope that this House will not try to play party politics—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—about matters of fact. It is the duty of my Ministry to state the facts, and I have taken steps to see that they are facts. I hope that no hon. Member on either side of this House will accuse the Ministry of Labour of partiality on the part of its officials or, I hope, on the part of its present political heads. I am satisfied that the statement I have made is fair and correct. The food part of the Index has fallen in the last six months from 113·8 to 109·6. I am not trying to make any party political point out of this but to state facts, and they are still facts whether hon. Members like them or not. The last point I want to make is that the Interim Index of Retail Prices was started in 1947 under the Socialist Government and that the wages of three million people depend upon its accuracy.
    Mr. Stokes: Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say about the effect of the drop in the price of eggs, is it not a fact that, in the case of bread, butter, cheese, rice and tea, what cost 10s. in October, 1951, now costs 15s., having gone up 50 per cent.?
    Mr. Watkinson: It is not the duty of the Ministry of Labour to pick out separate items in order to try to prove or disprove any particular case. It is our duty and my duty to give the figures. I have given the figures of the 42 per cent. of the Index which is devoted to food pro-
    1588
    ducts, the widest range that goes into the normal shopping basket. It is that part of the Index which has declined.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot go on debating these matters at Question time.

    Retail Prices Index
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour on what date the Scientific Committee last met to discuss the Index of Retail Prices.
    Mr. Watkinson: The Retail Prices Index Technical Committee last met on 29th February, 1952, but there was subsequent correspondence with the members, concerning the plans for the household expenditure inquiry. The Cost of Living Advisory Committee last met on 3rd November, 1952, for the purpose of giving final approval to these plans.
    Mr. Lee: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the scientific committee, which reported in March, 1952, asked for certain new weightings which they described as "temporary expedients" of only approximate merit? Would he not agree that since then there has been a most revolutionary movement because of the slashing of £100 million of food subsidies, which means for the foods which normally have to be bought most often—as people have to eat three times a day—that the weighting system is probably now obsolete? Would it not be a very good thing if the Minister were to call the Committee together and ask for the relevance of these weightings in the changed conditions which obtain, owing to the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Watkinson: We always keep this Index under review and we shall be only too pleased to look at any time at any matters raised by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the underlying inference is not that this is some sort of false index. It is as accurate as any impartial body can possible make it. It is just as well to establish that, because as I have already said, three million workers depend upon it. It has never, in its long history, been attacked on the ground that it is either unfair or inaccurate.

    Registered Dockers, Merseyside
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Minister of Labour how many registered dockers were surplus to requirement on Mersey-side each day from 1st January, 1954, to date.
    Mr. Watkinson: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate them in the Official Report.
    Mrs. Braddock: Can the Minister tell us the highest daily surplus that he has

    Merseyside Ports

    Date

    Surplus Labour proving attendance

    Liverpool

    Birkenhead

    Bromborough

    Total Merseyside Ports

    Surplus expressed as percentage of Registers

    1954

    January 1st

    …

    84

    8

    87

    179

    1·1

    January 2nd

    …

    2,173

    7

    40

    2,220

    13·7

    January 4th

    …

    1,625

    11

    66

    1,702

    10·5

    January 5th

    …

    1,095

    171

    98

    1,364

    8·4

    January 6th

    …

    1,545

    109

    81

    1,735

    10·6

    January 7th

    …

    1,060

    88

    59

    1,207

    7·4

    January 8th

    …

    505

    —

    48

    553

    3·4

    January 9th

    …

    2,760

    346

    81

    3,187

    19·6

    January 11th

    …

    728

    479

    127

    1,334

    8·2

    January 12th

    …

    1,443

    348

    32

    1,823

    11·2

    January 13th

    …

    2,120

    120

    —

    2,240

    13·8

    January 14th

    …

    1,932

    215

    57

    2,204

    13·6

    January 15th

    …

    74

    4

    —

    78

    0·5

    January 16th

    …

    1,301

    15

    —

    1,316

    8·1

    January 18th

    …

    425

    4

    —

    429

    2·6

    January 19th

    …

    183

    1

    —

    184

    1·1

    January 20th

    …

    285

    235

    —

    520

    3·2

    January 21st

    …

    847

    259

    —

    1,106

    6·8

  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Personal Case
    17. Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Labour his intentions with regard to the conscription of the Cardiff man, whose name has been supplied to him, who has been classified in medical category grade I for National Service despite the fact that he has been in attendance at the Cathedral Road Tuberculosis Clinic for six years, has had three lung operations, and is suffering from a rheumatic heart.
    Mr. Watkinson: The tuberculosis clinic has confirmed that there is no evidence of present disease. The lung
    on his list? As he is aware, that very large surplus of dockers on Merseyside is causing very great concern in the industry. What steps is he taking to deal with the position?
    Mr. Watkinson: The average daily surplus for the group during the year was 1,299, as compared with 3,593 in the same period last year. I will send the hon. Lady full details.
    Following are the figures:
    operations in early infancy have no present significance, and there is no evidence that rheumatic fever at the same time has had any residual effect on the heart condition. The man's call-up is suspended to permit inquiry into further statements by his mother, and I hope my readiness to make such inquiries will reassure the hon. Member and the House of my earnest desire not to call up any man of whose fitness for service there is any doubt. My final decision must, however, be based on the best available medical evidence.
    Mr. Thomas: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reasonable statement, may I ask whether he is aware that this

    1591
    action has only been taken following upon the Question appearing on the Order Paper of the House, that he himself sent me a letter, when I had brought all these facts to his notice, still insisting that the man must do his service, and finally that I am very grateful that publicity has led to action?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, all we want to do is to get these things right.

    Medical Board Members (Age)
    Mr. Manuelasked the Minister of Labour the average age of the members serving on the medical boards set up under the National Service Acts.
    Mr. Watkinson: The average age of members serving on National Service medical boards is 53 years.

    Conscientious Objectors Tribunals
    Mr. George Craddockasked the Minister of Labour if he is willing to extend the basis of representation on conscientious objectors tribunals to include ministers of religion representative of various denominations.
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. The present method of appointment, as laid down in the Fourth Schedule to the National Service Act, 1948, has proved satisfactory in practice, and I should not be in favour of altering it.
    Mr. Craddock: Is it not a fact that Lords Spiritual and Temporal are part of our State machinery? Furthermore, if we have ministers of religion in the Forces attending to the spiritual requirements of the men, surely it is time that the Minister should be just to the spiritual laws.
    Mr. Watkinson: We went very fully into this in debate not long ago, when I gave, in detail, the reasons why we think the present composition of the tribunal was as fair as we could make it.
    Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction with much of the questioning done in local tribunals, especially in regard to religious objectors? Will he seriously consider whether people more expert, and more understanding of such issues, should not be given a chance to sit on the tribunals?
    Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the hon. Member misunderstands me. There is no bar at present to the appointment of a member who happens to be a minister of religion. In fact, we have recently appointed one to the London local tribunal.
    22. Mr. George Craddockasked the Minister of Labour if he will amend the National Service Act, 1948, so as to give him power, by regulation, to lay down general principles upon which such tribunals are to proceed in deciding whether an objector is to remain registered in the register of conscientious objectors.
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. The National Service Acts deliberately placed on the independent tribunals the sole responsibility for deciding these cases. In my view, it would be a retrograde step to ask Parliament to empower my right hon. and learned Friend to fetter their judgment by regulations.
    Mr. Craddock: Is the Minister aware that there is wide disparity in the sentences meted out by the tribunals to conscientious objectors for the same offence, and therefore would it not be a good thing if the Minister kindly looked into this again so that proper guidance might be given to tribunals when making their decisions?
    Mr. Watkinson: We shall certainly look at it again, but I cannot give any promises.

    Exemptions
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Labour what percentage of young people who registered for military service in 1953 were subsequently granted exemption from National Service.
    Mr. Watkinson: The National Service Acts do not empower my right hon. and learned Friend to grant exemption to any person who is liable under those Acts, but on the assumption that the hon. Member has deferment in mind, I am sending him a copy of the Ministry of Labour Gazette for November, 1953, which contains information relating to the latest count on 12th October, 1953. National Service statistics based on the year of registration are not available.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply, but in view of the fact that 30 per cent, of young men of military age do no service because they are covered by the industry in which they serve, does he not think that it is straining the argument that conscription is the fairest way of calling people to the Colours when such a large proportion are never called?
    Mr. Watkinson: After I have sent the hon. Member these figures perhaps he would like to put down a Question. I quite agree that there is a certain amount of misunderstanding about this, and it might be a good thing to get it cleared up.

    Teachers
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Labour how many qualified teachers were called to the Colours straight from college, and before beginning teaching, in each of the years 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953, respectively.
    Mr. Watkinson: Such information is not readily available, but I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  SCOTLAND

    Wind-blown Timber (Clearance)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the imminence of spring and of necessary seasonal farm work makes urgent the clearance of fallen timber from Aberdeenshire farms; and if he will now make a further statement on the progress of this work.
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any further report to give of the progress in regard to the clearance of wind-blown timber as a result of last year's storms.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on 20th October last, the need for the speedy clearance of the wind-blown timber is fully realised and everything possible is being done to this end. With permission, I shall circulate in the Official Report a full statement of the progress made, but the House may be interested to know that about two
    1594
    million cubic feet of timber is being cleared each month, and if this rate can be maintained the bulk of the timber will be cleared within the estimated period of two years.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that under the cover of this fallen timber have developed large colonies of rabbits which sally forth and damage the growing crops, and what does he intend to do to protect those crops?
    Mr. Snadden: That is really a separate question. The obvious answer is to get the timber out of the way so as to get at the rabbits.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Does the Minister know that a great many smaller areas and estates are finding it impossible to get contractors to undertake clearance of the timber because the contractors prefer to go to the large areas where there is steadier work? What is the policy of his Department in this matter?
    Mr. Snadden: We are doing our best to group the smaller estates together so as to provide units more attractive to the merchants, but I agree that there are still isolated areas—some inaccessible—where we find a satisfactory solution difficult.
    Mr. Assheton: Has my hon. Friend any information as to the truth of the statement in the Question that spring is imminent in Aberdeenshire?
    Following is the statement:
    The most up-to-date estimate of the volume blown is 47¾ million cubic feet. Arrangements for working all except l½ million cubic feet have been made. A part of the balance is in small lots, difficult to work, and of indifferent quality.
    The volume of blown limber already felled and extracted to roadside is approximately 20 million cubic feet. The favourable weather experienced has enabled the rate of felling and extraction to be maintained during the winter months at approximately 2 million cubic feet per month. Mills within the blown area are working to capacity. Approximately 2 million cubic feet of round logs have been transported to mills outside the affected area under the transport assistance arrangements made by the Government. The transport assistance rates have now been increased in order further to encourage the movement of logs. The movement to England and Wales of mining timber surplus to the requirements of the Scottish coalfield is proceeding, also under freight assistance arrangements made by the Government, and to date orders have been placed for the movement of some 2 million cubic feet in this way.

    1595
    Also owing to favourable weather the position regarding deterioration of the timber still remaining to fell and extract is better than had been considered probable.
    Although in the case of some estates work is behindhand, I feel that viewed as a whole progress is as great as could reasonably have been expected and reflects credit on those engaged in the operation.

    Transport Costs
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the policy of his Department concerning high transport costs; and what action he proposes to take.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): The transport undertakings must of course, follow a policy of making charges which will cover their outgoings. My right hon. Friend is aware that transport costs are a matter of concern in the North of Scotland, and he is in close touch with the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in considering the current proposal of the British Transport Commission for an increase in freight rates.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Can my hon. Friend say whether his right hon. Friend is continuing to press the Transport Commission to introduce a tapering charges scheme? Does he realise that as far as concerns the fishing industry in Aberdeen—the main fishing port of Scotland—these high transport costs are really getting very serious indeed, and may well mean the blocking of the renewal of the fleet and, possibly, a steady decline for a number of years? What does his Department propose to do?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Lady may be interested to know that, following an initial exploratory discussion about the possibility of reduced rates for fish traffic by rail from Aberdeen, a committee consisting of representatives of the Aberdeen Fish Curers' and Merchants Association and of British Railways has been set up to go further into the matter. No information as to the course of these discussions is as yet available.

    River Forth (Pollution)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the River Forth is polluted to such an extent that it causes destruction to many salmon; and how soon this problem is likely to be tackled.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I am aware that the pollution of the Forth presents a serious problem. The question will be one for the Forth River Purification Board which my right hon. Friend has recently established and which I hope will be functioning within the next few months.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that the Forth has been recently described by one of the officials as a sink of filth, and that it would be much easier to preserve the fish by getting rid of the pollution than by having the vendetta against a few fishermen which seems to be pursued by the Forth River Purification Board?

    Communist Teachers (Police Inquiries)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how long the police have been allowed to enter educational establishments for the purpose of investigating the activities of teachers with Communistic political convictions, and whether he will put a stop to such practices forthwith.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: It would be contrary to police practice to conduct investigations in this way and I know of no recent case in which they have done so.
    Mr. Hamilton: I know of one such case. Does the Minister realise that, according to the headmaster who gave me the information, two plain clothes policemen recently entered his school and, without informing the individual concerned, asked about his Communistic affiliations as they affected his teaching? Will the Minister give specific instructions to the police force in Scotland that this practice must cease forthwith, and does not this, and other cases which I shall produce very soon, emphasise the absolute importance of having an investigation or inquiry into police methods in Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: I have no reason to believe that such an inquiry is desirable, but if the hon. Member can give particulars of the single case he has in mind, or others he may yet bring forward, we shall look at them.
    Mr. Hamilton: The headmaster concerned has asked me not to reveal his name because he fears victimisation, but

    1597
    is the hon Gentleman aware that some of my constituents, other than teachers, have been approached by the police and asked about certain Communists in the area, and will he make an attempt to stop this?
    Mr. Stewart: It is quite impossible for the hon. Member to ask us to do what he is asking if he does not give the evidence.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does not my hon. Friend think it highly undesirable that any Communist should be teaching the children of Great Britain?
    Mr. Hamilton: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Clyde Valley (Flooding)
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will appoint a committee to investigate the related problems of water control, flooding, soil erosion and mineral subsidence in the valley of the Clyde, and to examine the desirability of establishing a Clyde Valley Catchment Board.
    Mr. Snadden: As was indicated in a previous reply on 17th December, 1953, my right hon. Friend considers that the setting up of a catchment board for the Clyde Valley at this stage would be premature. The difficulty in regard to the Clyde area, as elsewhere in Scotland where flooding conditions exist, is the present lack of legislative powers to carry out remedial works, and an investigation of the technical questions involved would not in itself open up the way to a solution of the problem.
    Mr. Maitland: Is my hon. Friend aware that if we pressed ahead on the technical preparations and were able to assemble the hydrographic data now it would be possible to press on with remedial measures later on? At present, no single body has power to inquire into the relative factors throughout the Clyde Valley. Will he have another look at this matter?
    Mr. Snadden: It would not be practicable for us to set up a committee to examine the problems of the Clyde alone. There are other areas in Scotland where
    1598
    flooding takes place, and to set up a committee with a remit for the whole of Scotland would raise very great difficulties. I think we should wait.

    Land Drainage
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to introduce drainage legislation which will enable steps to be taken to prevent the flooding of houses and agricultural land.
    Mr. Snadden: As I indicated to the hon. Member in a reply given on 17th November, 1953, the discussions with the interested bodies have not yet been concluded, and I am therefore unable to make a statement at present.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the Joint Under-secretary not aware that many of our local authorities, farmers and householders are very disturbed at the lack of activity by the Government in connection with recurring flooding throughout Scotland? Does he not think that the negligence in this matter is deplorable? It is causing a loss of food production; many homes are flooded annually, and great expense is caused to local authorities each year because there is as yet no indication that this problem will be tackled in a realistic fashion.
    Mr. Snadden: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is really no lack of activity on the part of the Government. Nothing can be done in the particular area in which he is interested without further legislation. We are now in consultation with the various interests concerned—farmers, landowners and local authorities—but, until we get agreement on the methods to be employed, it is impossible for us to take the steps required.
    Mr. Manuel: Does not the Joint Under-Secretary agree that, although I have had this reply very many times, on the last occasion he indicated that something would be done this Session? That promise has now receded. Can he give any indication when legislation is likely to be introduced to deal with this problem?
    Mr. Snadden: I cannot give any date.

    Highland Development Area
    Mr. Brooman-Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new industrial enterprises have been

    1599
    established in the Highland Development Area in the last three years; and what alteration of policy or readjustment of Departmental responsibilities it is proposed to make to improve this position.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: As regards the first part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 14th December. It is the Government's policy to encourage the development of suitable industrial projects in the Highland Development Area. My right hon. Friend is in the closest touch with the President of the Board of Trade about this, but I should emphasise that much must depend on the willingness of industrialists to establish themselves there.
    Mr. Brooman-White: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the main object of this operation is to support the population and prosperity which is necessary for healthy agriculture in the Highlands? As there has been virtually no development, might not more responsibility be given to agricultural authorities rather than to the Board of Trade, which is, not unnaturally, preoccupied with other priorities?
    Mr. Nabarro: Scrap the hydro-electric scheme.
    Mr. Brooman-White: I beg to give notice that I shall seek an opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Industrial Development Sites, Edinburgh and Leith
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what sites are available in Edinburgh and Leith for industrial development.
    Commander Galbraith: There are 16 acres of land at Sighthill and 17 acres at Granton available for industrial development. The Corporation of Edinburgh's development plan, which is at present before my right hon. Friend proposes the provision during the next 20 years of 354·5 acres of new industrial sites, of which 37·5 acres would be in Leith and Seafield districts. The plan also proposes, in the same period, the clearance for industrial use of about 69 acres at present mostly occupied by obsolete or obsolescent buildings, of which 18·2 acres are in Leith.
    Mr. Hoy: In view of these figures and the high level of unemployment in Scotland generally, can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what steps his Department are taking to bring these sites to the notice of industrialists?
    Commander Galbraith: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put down a Question to that effect.

    Dundee School of Economics
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the Dundee School of Economics to be taken over by the University of St. Andrew.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The relevant Section of the Act cannot be brought into force until the university court has made arrangements with the town council about the transfer of the school and the statutory commissioners have made any necessary ordinances. I cannot yet say when this will be.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the hon. Member aware that the Dundee Education Committee has expressed grave anxiety about the way this seems to be taking place and the uncertainty which results in this vital field of university education in Dundee?

    Arrested Person, Coatbridge (Interview)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations were made to the Coatbridge police for permission to interview Hugh Green, arrested on 22nd November, before his conviction on 23rd November; by whom were the representations made; and what was the nature of the reply.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am informed that no such representations were made.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has already given me that reply and that we are ready to submit incontrovertible evidence that arrangements were made, and of the names of the persons in the police office to whom they were made? Will he look into the matter further if he is supplied with this further information?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, my right hon. Friend will be very ready to look at any evidence the hon. Lady cares to present to him.

    Alternative Employment, Newmains (Deputation)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to meet the representations made by the deputation from Newmains to the Minister of State.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: A number of suggestions for providing alternative employment for some of the men who were employed at Coltness Foundry have been taken up urgently with the departments and authorities concerned, and my right hon. Friend will communicate with the hon. Lady as soon as possible.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Joint Undersecretary of State aware that I have in my hand a letter of 21st January in which he gave me the same information. Is he also aware that the reply which he has given today strengthens my fears, and certainly the fears of my constituents, that Ministers at the Scottish Office are dealing in a complacent way with these matters? Surely I and my constituents had a right to expect that there would be some information available at this moment?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Lady has no right to say that. There is no complacency at all. We are most anxious about the situation there. We have pressed forward our inquiries with other Departments, which, indeed, we must do, with all urgency. I assure the hon. Lady that any representations she cares to make to us will find us most sympathetic.

  HOUSING, SCOTLAND

    Empty Properties, Glasgow
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to approve the request made to him by the Glasgow Corporation for authority to requisition certain empty houses to the number of approximately 1,500 in view of the number of homeless in Glasgow at the present time.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has informed the Corporation that he cannot accede to their request.
    Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that people in Glasgow are being sent to prison for squatting in vacant houses, is it not possible for the Secretary of State to get in touch with the Glasgow Corporation to decrease this very serious local problem? Can the Joint Under-Secretary say what is to be done about it?
    Commander Galbraith: I would remind the hon. Member that local authorities need not rely on private citizens in order to meet their housing needs. They have adequate powers to acquire houses, and my right hon. Friend has brought this fact to the notice of the Glasgow Corporation.

    Repairs and Rents Bill
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many protests he has received from local authorities against the Housing Repairs and Rents (Scotland) Bill.
    Commander Galbraith: Up to and including Monday, 25th January, my right hon. Friend has received protests of a general nature against the Bill from 15 local authorities (including three district councils). Representations have also been made to him on specific points in the Bill by six other local authorities.
    Mr. Manuel: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be aware that many local authorities in Scotland have not yet had an opportunity of coming to a decision on this Bill, but have not the representations which he has received given a clear indication that local authorities, generally, are not anxious to have this Bill? Even at this late date, will he not consider withdrawing the Bill because of the representations he has received and will continue to receive?
    Commander Galbraith: No, Sir.

    Glasgow Overspill Population
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to give his decision on the re quest made to him by the Clyde Valley Planning and Redevelopment Committee that a new town be built at Cumbernauld, Stirlingshire, to deal with Glasgow's housing problem.
    Commander Galbraith: No, Sir. The Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee is still considering the machinery

    1603
    it would wish to recommend for carrying out this and other developments which it may propose for dealing with Glasgow's overspill. Pending receipt of these recommendations, which we hope to have soon, my right hon. Friend has arranged for a technical examination of the Cumbernauld area to assess its suitability for the proposed development.

    Sub-standard Houses
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many substandard houses there are in Leith; and if he will give an estimate of what percentage this is of the houses coming within the control of the Rent Restriction Acts;
    (2) how many sub-standard houses there are in the city of Edinburgh; and if he will give an estimate of what percentage this is of the houses coming within the control of the Rent Restriction Acts.
    Commander Galbraith: A survey by Edinburgh Corporation in 1946 showed that 6,781 houses could be regarded as unfit and 39,108 as sub-standard but not unfit. Of these houses, 1,733 and 8,994 respectively were in Leith. As regards the second part of the Questions, no information is available on which to base any reliable estimate.
    Mr. Hoy: In view of these very large figures, can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what proportion of these houses fall to be dealt with under the new Housing Repairs and Rents (Scotland) Bill, and how much it is going to take to put them into a habitable condition?
    Commander Galbraith: As I said previously, no definite information is available on that matter.
    Mr. Hoy: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not have this information, how did he produce this Bill which is supposed to deal with the problem, and how does he know what the problem is?

    Compulsory Purchase Orders
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that local authorities are refusing to exercise their powers to take over vacant houses by acquisition on the advice of their legal advisers that such procedure would
    1604
    necessitate many months of delay and that the price fixed by arbitration or the district valuer would be on the present high level of exploitation value of vacant possession; and if he will make a statement.
    Commander Galbraith: I assume that the hon. Lady refers to the statutory procedure for the compulsory purchase of houses. My right hon. Friend has received no representations that this procedure involves undue delay or that the statutory provisions for determining the purchase price are inequitable.
    Mrs. Mann: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether any local authorities have, of late, used their powers to acquire and, if not, has he asked them why they have not done so?
    Commander Galbraith: Perhaps the hon. Lady will put down a Question to that effect.

  CIVIL DEFENCE (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Brigadier Clarkeasked the Prime Minister if he will consider transferring Civil Defence from the Home Office to the Minister of Defence so that all the defence services can be better coordinated.
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the disclosures in the Report of the Select Committee on the inefficiency and inadequacy of Civil Defence measures to protect the civil population of this country in the event of atomic bomb attack, he will appoint a new Minister of Cabinet rank with the sole duty of dealing with the problems of Civil Defence.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): No, Sir. Experience before, during and since the last war has shown conclusively that the main Civil Defence work is so closely linked with the maintenance of law and order and the work of local authorities that the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland must be the focal points for preparations and for operational control in the event of war. There has, of course, to be close liaison between the fighting Services and

  1605
  those engaged in Civil Defence, but this can be effectively secured, in our opinion, by consultations between Ministers and the services concerned.
  Brigadier Clarke: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the Home Secretary has a very large task on his plate and that the Civil Defence services would be better directed by someone else?
  Mr. Hughes: Has the Prime Minister read the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates on the Civil Defence services? Does he realise that they are in a state of confusion? Has he forgotten his warning to the House that as a result of the American bombers being here the population of this country is in an infinitely more dangerous position than it was in the last war? Is he going to allow the civil population to be sacrificed in the interests of extortionate military expenditure?
  The Prime Minister: Lots of points are raised in that supplementary question. I am astonished, I must say, that the hon. Member should suggest that I have not read that Report. This matter has been very carefully considered as between the civil and military authorities. We found it worked very satisfactorily—or more or lesssatisfactorily—in the war, and I think the Home Secretary is the Minister who should be in charge of it.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as one who experienced this office in the wartime Government of which he was Prime Minister, I am quite sure he is right? It is related to security in general; it is related to local government; and all the necessary relationships with the active defence were arranged and can be arranged. I would urge him to stand firm upon the point.
  The Prime Minister: I assure the right hon. Gentleman—I almost said my right hon. Friend, as he was in those days—I shall stand firm as a rock.
  Mr. Strachey: Now we are assured that the Prime Minister has read this Report, can he tell us he is going to take some action in view of the very serious situation it discloses of the inefficiency of the present arrangements, whatever the proper arrangements may be?
  The Prime Minister: The Report is being most carefully studied by the Departments, and by none more than the Home Office. Of course, undoubtedly, what is needed to make a very keen voluntary effort in Civil Defence is a sense of alarm, of danger. Without that it is difficult, and as the feeling that, perhaps, things are a little better and the outlook a little clearer grows in the land, it has that disadvantage that people do not feel the same need to be prepared for immediate war. Well, I think we shall have to put up with that.
  Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies—from both sides of the House—I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  BRITISH ARMY (NEW RIFLE)
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister whether, before deciding to accept the new Belgian rifle, he consulted with the United States Government; and whether the United States Government are in agreement with the British decision.
  Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order. I had three Questions down to the Prime Minister on this subject which were printed on the Notice Paper yesterday. They were printed in an order different from that which I requested. When I asked the Clerk at the Table if I could alter the order I was told no rearrangement was possible at that late hour. Further, late last night the Prime Minister, who felt understandably that he would be embarrassed by answering the Questions, rearranged the Questions to such an extent that they are now scattered to the four corners of the Order Paper. They are Questions Nos. 79, 96 and 97. I was not informed of this until this morning.
  All I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, is whether the Prime Minister had the right at a late hour last night to rearrange the Order Paper, when I was not allowed to rearrange even my own Questions, and also the wording of one of the Questions. Surely the Prime Minister, as a Member of this House, does not have any more right than any other Member with regard to the Order Paper.
  Mr. Speaker: As to rearranging the Order Paper, I have never known that function undertaken by any Department, but this appears to be a question of some transference of Questions asked of the Prime Minister to a Department. I have previously stated that that is entirely a matter for Ministers, over which I have no control. The hon. Member also complains that he did not hear about this until this morning. I have previously expressed the opinion—which is all I can do—that as long notice as possible should be given to the hon. Member concerned if Questions are transferred.
  The Prime Minister: I am very sorry if any inconvenience has been caused, but the Questions were of a highly detailed and technical character, and had to be examined by the Departments concerned. It was only when I saw the proposed answers that I realised that they opened no new or important points of principle, and, therefore, I thought they should be transferred to the Departments technically responsible.
  Now, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), whose excursions into other fields I have admired, while the decision to adopt the Belgian rifle rested entirely with Her Majesty's Government, the United States military authorities have been kept fully informed. I have reason to believe that they concur in out view.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the United States authorities have stated that they have no use for the new Belgian rifle at present, and probably not for many years, because they are fully equipped with their present rifle? Is he also aware that last week, in reply to Questions on this subject, he argued that standardisation was necessary. If the United States authorities are not to use the Belgian rifle, where does standardisation come in? Incidentally, may I ask him why, when he tested the Belgian rifle yesterday, he did not take the opportunity of testing the new British rifle? Why this preference for foreign products?
  The Prime Minister: I did test the new British rifle last year, but I do not pretend to be an expert on these matters. The recommendations on which I have
  1608
  acted have been made under the responsibility of the War Office, and approved by the Ministry of Defence, and I have deferred to the professional opinion expressed by those two Departments. On general grounds, having had some contact with questions affecting rifles over the last 60 years, I felt very much in agreement with the decision taken by the responsible technical Departments. I think it is very lucky for us that we did not get launched out on a solitary voyage on the ·280 or, as it is called, the E.M.2, for 10 years, with the Army having duplicate weapons and no other Army in the world on that system or calibre. We might have been.
  I fully confess that I admired the ·280 and that I pressed hard in the United States that they should adopt it. If they had adopted it, it would have made a great difference, but they would not adopt it, and the question of our going on alone is a very serious one. In fact, I do not think anybody could possibly defend our conducting a private, isolated operation while at the same time our entire military system tends to work with as many countries as possible in the line.
  Mr. Attlee: Was not one of the questions between the British and the American rifle a question of the calibre of the bullet, of the ammunition? That, I understand, has now been settled, so that there is no question about interchangeability of the ammunition. May I also ask this question: at the moment the right hon. Gentleman has decided to go with the Belgians but not, I gather, with the United States, who have come to no firm decision. Is not that so? Thirdly, would he explain to the House some of the details of this Belgian rifle which appears, from the point of view of any one used to rifles, to be very complicated? I understand that it has to have all sorts of bits put on to it before anybody can use a bayonet.
  The Prime Minister: Canada is taking the greatest interest in this matter, but it is a very difficult and complicated matter to argue. I would gladly take part in a debate on the subject if an opportunity could be found in the course of the debate on the Army Estimates.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: We need more time.
  The Prime Minister: I shall be delighted to enter the lists, and I hope the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) will keep his ardour for that occasion.
  Mr. Strachey: Cannot the Prime Minister at least tell us on what grounds all his experts who. three years ago unanimously agreed that the British rifle was, on balance, superior, have changed the advice which they tendered at that time? Why, when the calibre position has been solved, should they now change over from the British design to the Belgian design? That is the point at issue.
  The Prime Minister: Because they think that the essential qualities are at least equally well presented in the Belgian form and that many other convenient aspects of a more general character—important in a weapon of this class—are also much better presented—for instance to carry it on the march, to use it for manual exercises. It has a butt—remember that; it is very important when one has no ammunition left to have a butt on one's rifle. That does not always occur to the technician. It is also a very convenient weapon to use with the bayonet, and it also can fire in a dangerously short time all the ammunition which can ever be carried to the front.
  Mr. Attlee: As the right hon. Gentleman has gone into some technicalities, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that an extra part has to be added at night to conceal the flash? When it is on, one has to take it off again in order to put on the bayonet. I think that would be highly inconvenient.
  The Prime Minister: I should be very glad to organise an exhibition of the rifle and to facilitate Members of Parliament going to see it on a rifle range. They are welcome to fire it if they choose, provided adequate arrangements are made for pairing.

KENYA (REPORT OF INQUIRY)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
64. Mr. Swingler: To ask the Secretary of State for War when he expects to receive the proceedings of the court of inquiry on the allegations made at the trial of Captain Griffiths.
66. Mr. A. Henderson: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the joint responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Secretary of State for War for the operations being conducted against the Kikuyu, he will ensure that the full report of the recently-appointed court of inquiry covering the activities of both Departments, together with the evidence received, will be presented to Parliament.
72. Mr. Shinwell: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make a statement on the inquiry into recent incidents in Kenya.
76. Mr. Brockway: To ask the Secretary of State for War to state the conclusions reached by the court of inquiry into military actions in Kenya; and if he will publish the report of the court and the evidence submitted to it.
At the end of Questions—
The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): Mr. Speaker, I will with your permission and that of the House answer these Questions by making a statement about the court of inquiry held by Lieut.-General McLean in Kenya.
The court assembled on 15th December and completed its report on 31st December.
Evidence was taken from all commanding officers and from officers, other ranks, chaplains and medical officers of all formations and major units now in Africa which have been involved in the operations. Others concerned were invited to give evidence and amongst those who availed themselves of this opportunity was the director of a native civil hospital and a bishop. I am satisfied that the court, which took evidence from 147 military and civil witnesses, gave every opportunity to those concerned to appear before it.
I told the House that when the court of inquiry had been completed I would

1611
make available a full and frank report. This I have prepared and I can assure the House that I have omitted nothing of substance contained in the findings of the court of inquiry.
As my report to the House is of necessity rather long, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I circulated it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I think that hon. Members will agree with me when they have read it that the summary of the findings indicates that the troops in Kenya have shown a high sense of responsibility and application to duty. There do not appear to be any grounds for accusing them of indiscriminate shooting, irresponsible conduct or inhuman practices. There have, however, been allegations that in two instances serious misconduct occurred in the King's African Rifles. These cases are being fully investigated and disciplinary action will be taken if required in the light of these inquiries. As I have already told the House, both General Erskine and I are determined that such matters shall be brought to light and our intention, both in instituting the court of inquiry and in subsequent action, is for a clean-up, not a cover-up.
I consider that the court made a full and comprehensive inquiry and that all the facts have been placed before me. Subject to what I have said about the allegations of serious misconduct in two cases, nothing is disclosed which should in any way shake the confidence of the House in the high standard of behaviour of the British Army. As a result of reading the report and visiting Kenya, I am convinced that the British Army, under difficult and arduous circumstances, has shown that measure of restraint backed by good discipline which this country has traditionally expected.
Mr. A. Henderson: I am sure the whole House will welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that, except for two instances in the King's African Rifles, this report discloses no ground for lessening the confidence of the House in the high standard of the behaviour of the British Army. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he means about these two isolated instances in the King's African Rifles? Does his statement mean that evidence was brought before
1612
the court of inquiry which established that there had been only two cases where money had been offered and paid to soldiers in that regiment out of all the forces taking part in the operations in Kenya—arising out of the suggestion that "five bob a nob "was being paid? Does the report establish that there were only two cases of soldiers being offered and paid money for killing these African tribesmen?
Mr. Head: No, Sir. When the right hon. Gentleman has read the report, he will see that the question of monetary awards is very fully dealt with in my Report which I am giving to the House. Those two particular incidents were not concerned with monetary awards but were of a more serious nature and they are outlined in the report. [Hon. Members: "More serious?"] I said of a more serious nature. The point is that, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, there were three categories concerned, one of which was alleged ill-treatment or brutality. These particular incidents were discovered by the court and are now the subject of detailed investigation, and it would be wrong for me to say more until these detailed investigations are completed. I can assure the House that, if the evidence is there as a result of these investigations, disciplinary action will be taken.
Mr. Shinwell: Can the Minister explain to the House why he declines to publish the full report? If there is nothing to conceal, there is no disadvantage in hon. Members, and indeed the public, being made aware of all that happened during the inquiry. If, on the other hand, there is some reason why he does not wish to disclose all that was ascertained during the inquiry, does it not create suspicion in the minds of some people that there is something wrong, and would it not be justifiable in the interests of the Army, of the Government and of all concerned that he should publish the full report?
Mr. Head: I tried to explain before when this question was under discussion in the House that the proceedings of a court of inquiry, as written verbatim, are a privileged document. A great asset of these inquiries is that witnesses can give evidence quite freely without the fear of proceedings being taken. If it had been a civil court, then I could have published

1613
the findings, but at the same time I could have compelled nobody to give evidence, and there would have been no guarantee that proceedings would not be taken against them. It is always the case that in a court of inquiry the proceedings are a private document and by publishing them we should be breaking down the whole of that precedent, which would be embarrassing not only on this occasion but on all other occasions in the future.
Mr. Strachey: Does the Secretary of State realise that no one, I am sure, in any part of the House doubts his efforts or those of General Erskine or of General McLean to clear up this matter or doubts the restraint which the Army has attempted to show in terribly difficult circumstances? The anxiety which has been expressed on this side of the House is that the circumstances of the work which the Army is being asked to do in Kenya today must inevitably produce, in the long run, the deplorable incidents which were shown in the Griffiths case and other cases. That is the anxiety which we have.
Mr. Head: I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety. I think that the British soldiers in Kenya and their officers are operating with great restraint and understanding in very difficult circumstances. I, personally, have confidence that they will continue so to do. Without trying to be too didactic, I would say that the incidents that have occurred have been cases where officers have failed in their duty in that respect and there are other reasons for thinking that those particular officers, perhaps, were not well-trained for the job they had to do. By and large, I do not think that this difficult situation is one with which the British Army cannot deal while retaining its high standards.
Mr. Swingler: No doubt the Secretary of State read the transcript of the court-martial proceedings on Captain Griffiths. Will he say, in view of the clear evidence in that case of the offering of bribes for the indiscriminate shooting of Africans, what charges are being preferred against those people about whom evidence was given? As a result of his court of inquiry, and in view of the sensational publicity given to the court-martial of Captain Griffiths, would it not be better to publish in full the proceedings of this
1614
court of inquiry so as to clear up all doubts that were cast and allegations that were made in the case of Captain Griffiths?
Mr. Head: I think that the hon. Gentleman had much better await the report, which will answer fully the questions put to me. The latter part of his supplementary question I have already answered.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this side of the House we do not take the view that brutality was general in the Regular troops, and that the gravest charges are against the Kenya Regiment, the police and the Home Guard? Does the report cover those Forces as well as the Regular troops from this country?
Mr. Head: No, Sir. The Forces which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned do not come under my Department or the Army. The Court of Inquiry did, however, cover the actions of the Kenya Regiment and Home Guard when they were taking part in operations under the command of the Army; otherwise these forces are not covered.
Mr. Wyatt: Can the Secretary of State say whether any further proceedings are now to be taken against Captain Griffiths, and what further action is to be taken in the case of this officer in the future?
Mr. Head: I have already said that the particular cases now under investigation are awaiting the completion of that investigation before any final decision is made about either disciplinary or legal proceedings. I cannot answer that question until these investigations are completed.
Mr. Wyatt: How long will that be?
Mr. Dugdale: If it is not possible—which I can understand—to deal with troops who do not come under his command, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Colonial Secretary to see whether a suitable inquiry may be made into the allegations against people in the Home Guard and police and others not in the Army?
Mr. Head: I know that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary has this matter very much in mind.
Following is the summary of the report by the McLean Court of Inquiry into allegations made during the trial of Captain G. S. L. Griffiths, D.L.I., against conduct of the British Security Forces in Kenya
Origin
1. Captain G. S. L. Griffiths, D.L.I., was tried by General Court Martial on 25th–27th November on a charge of murder of an African, and was acquitted. In the course of this trial certain allegations were made against the conduct of the British Security Forces in Kenya.
A Court of Inquiry was assembled by G.O.C.-in-C, East Africa, on 15th December, 1953, to enquire into and report on these allegations.
The President of the Court was Lieut.-General Sir Kenneth McLean, K.B.E., C.B., and members—Colonel G. Barret, O.B.E., Deputy Director, Army Legal Services, War Office and Colonel G. A. Rimbault, D.S.O., M.C., Deputy Chief of Staff, East Africa Command.
Terms of Reference
2. The Court were instructed to enquire into and report on the allegations made at the G.C.M. on Captain Griffiths in respect of:

(a) the offering to soldiers of monetary rewards for Mau Mau killings;

(b) the keeping and exhibition of score boards recording official and un official kills and other activities against Mau Mau;

(c) the fostering of a competitive spirit amongst units in regard to kills in anti-Mau Mau operations.

3. In addition, the Court were instructed to enquire into any other actions which might come to their notice which reflected discredit on the Army and, in particular, into:

(a) any other inhuman practices such as the cutting off of hands from Africans killed during the course of anti-Mau Mau operations;

(b) any other matters which reflected on the honour of the Army.

They were, however, instructed that, with the exception of inquiring into the operations of 39 Infantry Brigade from their arrival in East Africa, and in particular into the specific allegations that
1616
a £5 reward had been offered for the first "kill" by one of its battalions, they would confine their inquiries to matters which occurred after 1st June, 1953.
Method
4. The Court assembled on 14th December, 1953, and completed its report on 31st December, 1953.
During this period it took evidence from all formations and major units (Lieut.-Colonels' Commands) now in Africa which had been involved in anti-Mau Mau operations.
5. A representative cross section of witnesses was heard from each major unit, ranging from the Commanding Officer to other ranks and including, where possible, the chaplain and medical officer.
In addition all units published orders giving details of the subjects being investigated by the Court and inviting any person wishing to do so to give evidence.
The Court heard evidence from 147 witnesses and these included six Army chaplains and four regimental Medical Officers, the Director of a native civil hospital and a Roman Catholic Bishop. The Christian Council of Kenya were invited to put forward any specific allegations against the conduct of the Army of which they were aware, but replied that they had no such matters to put forward.
Background
6. The area in which the Army in Kenya is operating comprises:
(a) The Prohibited Areas
Areas consisting largely of forest and mountain, gazetted as prohibited by the Kenya Government, into which no persons other than members of the Security Forces or a small number holding a special permit are allowed to enter. Under Kenya Emergency Regulations, Security Forces have the right, if necessary, to shoot on sight.
(b) The Special Areas
These are areas, gazetted as such, in which certain special rules regarding the use of fire-arms apply. Any person in a special area who fails to halt after being challenged is liable to be shot. The special areas include the Kikuyu,

1617
Embu and Meru Land Units, commonly called "The Reserve," and also parts of the Kenya Highlands in the Central and Rift Valley Provinces in which lie the farms and ranches of European settlers, commonly called "The Settled Area."
Allegations
The offering to soldiers of monetary awards for Man Mau killings
7. The Court found one instance where a reward was offered to a unit for getting a specific, criminal. The battalion had been warned that a notorious Mau Mau leader, for whom the Government had offered a reward of five thousand shillings, was in the vicinity and that they were to undertake operations against him. Two of the Company Commanders, with the approval of the Commanding Officer, offered one hundred shillings to the unit which killed or captured him. This amount was to be laid out in kind for the benefit of the successful unit or sub-unit and was not to be paid to any individual. The Court considered that this offer, though mistaken, was explicable in the circumstances obtaining at the time.
There was also one instance which has already been publicised where a Commanding Officer offered £5 to the first sub-unit to kill a terrorist, as an encouragement to the troops when the battalion first went into action in anti-Mau Mau operations. The battalion was going into operations in the prohibited area (an area of thick forest) where no one other than the Security Forces had the right to be. The Court came to the same conclusion, as in the previous case, bearing in mind that it could not possibly recur because the G.O.C.-in-C. has since expressly forbidden the offering of monetary awards of any kind.
An instance also occurred where a Commanding Officer had given discretion to his Company Commanders to give rewards in the form of money, leave or other privileges to individuals or sub-units who put up an exceptionally good performance in operations. The assessment of a very good performance was not expressly related to kills. Monetary awards of this type will not recur.
Apart from the instances mentioned above and the rewards offered by Captain Griffiths as admitted in his evidence at
1618
his court martial, there is no other evidence of the practice of offering soldiers monetary or other rewards for killing Mau Mau in any of the units which they investigated.
The keeping and exhibition of score-boards recording unofficial kills and other activities in operations against Mau Mau
8. The Court understood the term "Scoreboard" to be used in a derogatory sense and to refer to a visual record kept and displayed solely or mainly to foster unhealthy and irresponsible competition in killings between units and sub-units.
It is necessary for all formations, units and sub-units to collect and consolidate information recording all incidents in order to complete the periodical situation reports required by higher formations, and to show clearly to Commanders at all levels the progress of operations. The incidents so recorded include casualties to Mau Mau and to our own troops, prisoners captured, arms captured or lost, contacts with gangs, cattle stolen, etc.
The Court found that in platoons such information was kept in notebooks or memorised. In companies it was normally kept in notebooks or on pro-form as in files. In some Company, Battalion and Brigade Headquarters, these incidents were consolidated graphically in the form of wall charts for the greater convenience of Commanders.
All these forms of Charts were considered perfectly legitimate and reasonable. There was no evidence that they were used for any improper purpose. Moreover it was clear that without exception they were kept in offices to which access was severely restricted. There was no evidence of records of unofficial killings whether this phrase is used in the sense of Mau Mau wounded and believed killed or in the sense of Africans other than the established Mau Mau who have been killed.
The Courts finding was that allegations of the exhibition of "scoreboards" recording official and unofficial kills and other activities in operations against Mau Mau were unfounded. Nothing more appeared to have been kept than Charts recording official incidents consolidated from Situation Reports, which were kept in offices to which access was severely restricted.
The fostering of a competitive spirit amongst units in regard to kills in anti-Mau Mau operations
9. The Court found that it was widely recognised amongst all ranks that the number of kills obtained by units de pended largely on opportunity and that a captured Mau Mau who might possibly give valuable information was better than a dead one. Units' and sub-units' capabilities appear to have been judged not by their total of kills but by the number of successful operations they carried out, including the capture of prisoners. When battalions were operating solely in a prohibited area, the capture of arms and prisoners was rare due to the conditions prevailing in those areas and the number of kills therefore acquired a greater prominence.
Due to very wide dispersion the rivalry between battalions appears to be negligible. Members of different battalions seldom met and in no cases did the Court find that witnesses knew the total kills in neighbouring battalions. There was somewhat more rivalry between companies within a battalion and still more between platoons in a company. The Court satisfied themselves that the competitive spirit did not go beyond the natural rivalry to be found between sub-units in all good regiments in the British Army.
The Court found that allegations that the competitive spirit was being deliberately fostered amongst units in regard to kills in anti-Mau Mau operations were unjustified.
Identification of Mau Mau killed in operations
10. The Court also investigated whether the practice existed in the Army of cutting off the hands of Africans killed in operations and bringing these hands back as a means of identification.
The normal practice when an African is killed by troops during operations in the Special Areas is for the body to be brought back to the nearest police post where it is handed over to the police.
In the Prohibited Areas the normal practice is for the body to be brought back by a patrol if this is possible. If this is impossible due to distance, terrain, or for operational reasons, identification papers, if any, are removed from the body. When no papers are found fingerprints are taken with pads and ink
1620
specially issued to patrols and particulars of the corpse are recorded. If operational considerations permit, the body is then buried. The papers and finger prints are handed over to the police on completion of the operation.
It appears that in the early phases of anti-Mau Mau operations and in the Prohibited Areas it was an accepted—although not a universal practice—to cut off either one or both hands from a body where the body could not be brought in and there was no other means of identification. The hand was brought back in order that finger prints could be taken from it. This practice was dictated by the necessity of reporting all Mau Mau casualties to the police. This practice started to decrease with the wide issue of finger printing equipment to units and has now been specifically forbidden, even if it means the loss of an identification.
It appears that in six instances (one of which was in the Special Areas) involving three battalions, hands had been brought back as proof of identification of Africans killed since 1st August, 1953. In each case this mutilation was carried out in good faith, on the instructions of a European officer or N.C.O. in view of the lack of other means of identification and was explicable in the operational circumstances. G.H.Q., East Africa, issued a further order on 1st January, 1954, accepting the loss of an identification if other methods were not available.
Inhuman practices—the torture and beating up of African prisoners and the illegal killing of Africans
11. Normally prisoners when captured are immediately questioned by members of the sub-unit which captured them (assisted where necessary by personnel of the Kenya Regiment, Police or Home Guard to act as interpreters) in order to obtain information as to who they are and whether they can guide the unit to a Mau Mau hideout. On conclusion of operations those retained as suspects are normally brought back to unit headquarters and handed over as soon as possible to the police—in some cases after further interrogation by the battalion Intelligence Officer.
The Court found no evidence whatever of African prisoners having been severely beaten or tortured by Army units for the

1621
purpose of forcing them to give information or for any other purpose, except in certain specific instances in two Kings African Rifles (K.A.R.) Battalions which are discussed in paragraphs 12 and 13 below. In fact, in British battalions the troops were, as always, most sympathetic to their prisoners, offering them tea and cigarettes. As one witness put it to the Court, "The prisoners put on weight whilst they are with us." Nor did the Court find any evidence of the illegal killing of Africans, except in certain specific cases which are discussed below.
Inhuman practices in K.A.R. Battalions
12. During June, 1953, one Company of a K.A.R. Battalion acted as Mobile Reserve to 70 (East Africa) Infantry Brigade and was detached for some weeks from its parent battalion. Apart from the incidents on 11th June which gave rise to the trial by court martial of Captain Griffiths, at which he was acquitted, there were certain other specific allegations against officers and men of this Company. These allegations are still under investigation.
13. Certain specific allegations have also been made that certain African prisoners have been ill-treated in another K.A.R. Battalion. A full investigation is now being made.
Honour of the Army
14. Other than the allegations in relation to the two K.A.R. Battalions referred to above, which are now under separate investigation, there is no evidence of any inhuman conduct to wards Africans on the part of the Army.
Conclusion
15. The above is a full and frank summary of the findings of the Court. It is my opinion, after reading the findings of the Court, that the incidents referred to in paragraphs 12 and 13 above, though deplorable, are rare and isolated. Allegations that such practices are or ever were widespread in the British Army are with out foundation. Its conduct, under difficult and arduous circumstances, showed that measure of restraint backed by good discipline which this country has traditionally expected.

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).—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LONG LEASES (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill referred to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Commander Galbraith.]

  DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.47 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill extends and slightly amends the Development of Inventions Act, 1948—an Act which, the House will recall, established the National Research Development Corporation. I think that it would be convenient if I started by saying a word about the Corporation itself.
  I think the House will agree with me that it is important neither to exaggerate nor to minimise the rôle which the National Development Corporation has to play. It is still, in fact, in an early stage. It represents, of course, only one part of the massive development resources, public and private, which exist in the nation. Its purpose was not to supply these resources but to supplement them. The rôle allotted by Parliament to the Corporation in 1948 was, first, to hold the rights in certain inventions arising from public research, and secondly, to secure commercial development and exploitation by industry of those inventions plus any other inventions where it appeared that the public interest so required. For that purpose, the House of Commons voted the Corporation the sum of £5 million over five years, although it has not, in fact, spent anything like that sum. It is no reflection on those who introduced the Bill at that time that the sum itself was inevitably merely a guess as to what might be required during the period.
  The Corporation is an expert body. The managing director, Lord Halsbury, is a full-time member, and I think the House will permit me to say that we are
  1624
  very fortunate indeed to have his services in this capacity. Otherwise, the members are all part-time experts in their own field, who have lent their services for this particular rôle, and many of them are unpaid. We can be grateful to them for their services.
  The Corporation does not itself, and will not in the normal course of its job under the Act, or under the Act as amended by the Bill, conduct development or research. Its job is to collect inventions, to enter into contracts with others to carry out any work that is required, and to license the result to industry to use. In general, the Corporation operates, therefore, through others, sometimes through private firms, sometimes through research organisations, sometimes through universities. In the ordinary course of events it does not, and does not in future intend to, set up elaborate laboratories for the purpose of undertaking research itself.
  The Corporation's capital has been provided by the Government under the Act, and up to now £750,000 has been provided. Its revenue is derived from royalties. There has been not serious, but some, criticism that the Corporation has spent too little, which is a rare criticism to hear in these days, but it might be convenient if I say why it has been limited to £750,000.
  The reason essentially is that it takes time to work through the small-scale bench work, with which the invention or its development starts, to the finished article or the working prototype which is eventually licensed to the industry; and on quite a number of the inventions the period of heaviest expenditure is yet to come. Expenditure has also been limited because the Corporation has been very careful in what it selected. I make no apology for that. I should be in a very difficult position indeed if I were standing at this Box trying to defend investment after investment by the Corporation which had been made at large expense and had subsequently failed. Instead, I can put forward the case of a Corporation that has kept scrupulously within the terms of reference laid down for it by Parliament and has, therefore, spent on a conservative budget.
  Mr. Arthur Colegate: Can my right hon. Friend state the income for last year?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I am coming to that. This is almost like a Budget, but not quite so exciting. If expenditure was slow, the revenue has been slow too. Indeed, that must be so, because the revenue is received only after the licence has been taken out, production has started, and the royalty return begins to flow in. As my hon. Friend knows, very often the period of maximum return is generally towards the end of the patent period.
  The details were published in the last Annual Report, which many hon. Members will have studied. In general, the picture which it shows is that of the Corporation borrowing money and spending it in acquiring patent rights of the inventions assigned to it, and then enhancing the value of these patent rights by further development, and eventually licensing the resultant product in return for revenue.
  The revenue in 1949–50, when the Corporation first started, was £3,000. The revenue last year, the latest year covered by the Reports, was £25,000. I understand that the revenue next year is likely to be at least double this, or £50,000. These figures are very small, but they show the trend which is developing. The fact is that as the Corporation progresses, both the amount of money borrowed from the Government and committed on development work and the revenue received from past work are steadily on the increase.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield: Can my right hon. Friend give an indication whether, when patents which the Corporation exploits belong to Government Departments, provision is made for payment to the Government Departments for the work they have done, so that in addition to the Corporation getting the revenue which it now gets and will expect to get, Government Departments also will receive their share for the work they have done in inventing the invention?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I think not, but I will look into the point. The purpose of the Act was to concentrate the rights in these inventions in the one body. Probably it would be desirable to try to get that body working correctly, with its expenditure and with its revenue coming in, without then trying further to channel
  1626
  out the income from various bits of inventions to various Government Departments. But I shall certainly look at the point mentioned by my hon. Friend.
  Now a word on the work that has been done. The Corporation holds some 500 patents at home and 227 overseas. Applications for registering other patents are, of course, in hand. Mostly they are from Government Departments, which is the point my hon. Friend had in mind, and up to the moment necessarily only a small proportion have got to the final stage where revenue is beginning to come in. They do not earn revenue until they are licensed, and the Corporation either has issued itself, or has had assigned to it from the Government Departments, some 250 licences to individual industries to use these things.
  As the House knows, the projects vary considerably. The Corporation holds a large number of inventions in the field of the electronic brain. Mostly they originate from the work of Professor Williams and his team of research workers at Manchester University. They hold the rights with regard to a potato harvester, a chick sexer and a light steam engine. I mention these only to remind the House that what impresses one when studying the Corporation's Annual Report is the immense range of technology which it covers.
  The first thing that the Bill does is to enable this work to go on. Without the Bill, the work would stop on 28th June this year. I think the House, on all sides, would agree that that would be a pity. It would deny the Corporation the opportunity to benefit to the full from the work it has already done. It would stop the channel between inventions which take place in Government Departments and their application by private industry, and it would deny to private inventors, not the only channel, but one channel which they have for trying out the product of their inventive minds. So Clause 1 preserves the powers of lending, and if necessary, with the consent of the Treasury, the waiving of interest payments.
  Clause 2 of the Bill clarifies and slightly extends the scope of the Corporation's activities. I should like to take that Clause bit by bit. Subsection (1) is really no extension of the law as we understand

  1627
  it. It is simply put in for the removal of a doubt. It appears that there is some doubt whether powers under the original Act exist to carryout research for the purpose of developing an existing invention if this should lead to a substantially new invention. I do not think any side of the House would wish to hamper the Corporation in its development work simply on the ground that it might discover something else. I think that in those circumstances, if there is a doubt, which I understand there is, in the original Act, it is much better that it should be removed.
  Subsection (2), and indeed the remainder of Clause 2, is an extension of powers. I think I can explain its purpose best by referring to the Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy which reported last July. Hon. Members who read that Report will probably remember the passages to which I am about to refer. Among other things, it says:
  "We believe that extension of the use of research and development contracts, largely through existing organisations, offers great possibilities in the modernisation of civilian industry and its exploitation of scientific discoveries. We hope that the appropriate authorities will give further, and urgent, consideration to the machinery necessary for this extension."
  Then it goes on to point out that the National Research Development Corporation will be under some handicaps in carrying out that recommendation, and it says in particular:
  "The Corporation is concerned with the development or exploitation of inventions but it is not expected to see applications for scientific discoveries, nor has it the power to initiate research or to perform the vital function of identifying new needs."
  I think everyone will agree that the Report of the Scientific Advisory Committee is an important document, and its recommendations cover a much wider field than this particular Bill. The application of these recommendations is being considered by the various Departments, not only by the Board of Trade but by the Lord President of the Council and others who are concerned with these matters. If the Corporation is to play its part in all this, it seems clear that it will need the powers contained in subsections (2) and (3).
  Briefly, the object of subsection (2) is to deal with the case of an industry which states a practical requirement that it
  1628
  wants and for which it desires an invention to be made if inventive genius can make it. In a case like that, it allows the Corporation to promote research work related to that end. The industry need not necessarily come to the Corporation, but it can do so if it wishes.
  The purpose of subsection (3) is to deal with the case where the Corporation becomes aware of a piece of research which has resulted in a discovery which, at the moment, is of not practical application, but where the Corporation believes that if there is further research that discovery can be applied to some practical end in industry; that is to say, some piece of research which at the moment is interesting more from a theoretical point of view than any other, but which seems likely, if only a little more work is done on it, to be brought up to the point at which there can be practical application. Subsection (3) allows the Corporation to promote that further research if it so wishes.
  Two points should be made clear. First, the job of the Corporation is to promote and assist research. It is not primarily to undertake it, and never to undertake it in competition with industry or with other Government Departments. That would be frustrating and a waste of time. Secondly, it is very desirable that the work of the Corporation should not overlap the work of the universities, or of other Government Departments, or of research orgnisations like the Medical Research Council and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. It is for that reason that we have inserted the last two subsections of Clause 2. We think that they are the necessary provisions to ensure that this type of work is approved of not only by the President of the Board of Trade, but by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council, who, as the House will recall, is responsible for the general co-ordination of scientific policy.
  Mr. H. A. Marquand: The right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Corporation should never undertake research unless somebody asks it to do so?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: No, it can, and subsection (3) specifically deals with the case where it has not been asked to do so but where a piece of research is required to be carried further so that it can be

  1629
  developed for practical application. It can initiate; but if I am wrong in that, I will have it corrected.
  That comprises the purpose of the Bill. I hope that it is in no sense of the word controversial. I have only to say this in conclusion. In the economic situation in which we find ourselves, we clearly need all the help with which science can provide us, and we cannot neglect any of the inventive skills which are available. The House may well agree with the oft-made criticism that our main weakness is not in research but in the application of research to practical inventions, or in the development and exploitation of those inventions to a point where the maximum use can be made of them in our industrial effort.
  It is clear that no one body can secure this. There is a vast amount of work to be done by other research organisations such as the Medical Research Council, the Cotton Research Council, the Agricultural Research Council and other bodies of that kind which come under the aegis of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. I believe that the National Research Development Corporation has its part to play in this work, and this Bill, if approved of by the House, will enable it to continue and to bring to fruition the work which it has started already, and give it some of these extra and rather wider powers which will enable it to carry on with its work even more effectively in the future.
  4.10 p.m.
  Mr. John Edwards: I welcome this Bill and I welcome, too, the opportunity to consider the progress of the Corporation and to consider also the place which it can and might occupy in our economy. Certainly, we can say today that the gloomy forebodings of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), who is now the Colonial Secretary, have proved to be completely false. At the time the original Bill was introduced he was full of alarm and despondency, but we can say that the record of the National Research Development Corporation, though a modest one, is very good.
  The Corporation has behaved with great prudence and common sense, it has been careful not to inflate its staff beyond real requirements, and it has been at the
  1630
  greatest of pains to use all the help it could get from outside by the use of consultants; and, also, it has co-operated to the full with industry. Taking everything into account, therefore, I believe that the record to date reflects great credit on the-members of the Corporation and particularly on Lord Halsbury and his staff, who have done a very good job. As time goes on I think we shall see further proof of the worth of the expenditure involved.
  There is one point about the organisation of the Corporation which I want to ventilate although I recognise that it is not something which can be dealt with on the occasion of this Second Reading. Although the Corporation has a relatively small staff it is a fairly involved and complex organisation dealing with a wide range of not easy operations. I wonder whether the time has not come when the Corporation ought to be organised differently. At the moment we have the members of the Corporation, only one of whom is full-time, and below the managing director we have a number of top level staffs.
  I am wondering whether we ought not to consider the possibility of having two bodies: one with the members concerned acting as trustees for the public interest and, below that, a body of full-time executives. That is now the pattern in large-scale industry and in some of the public corporations. I wonder whether we are trying to put too much on the present members and so I should like that to be considered.
  I have no special point to make about the Bill which cannot be more properly put during the Committee stage. I only want to urge that the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) about Clause 2(2) should be clarified. It is important that we should know how the word "requirements" will be interpreted, so perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with that point when he replies to the debate.
  As I understand, the Corporation, as originally conceived, was primarily one dealing with patents that resulted from public research. The numbers of such patents may be large, but it does not follow that many of them are significant or important in commercial terms. Nevertheless, the Corporation has done,

  1631
  and doubtless will continue to do, an extremely useful job of granting licences from the flow of patents. I would not think that the point made by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) in an interruption would be desirable; that is to say, I would not think it a good thing if an elaborate process of calculation had to be adopted in order to decide what small part of revenue ought to go to this or that Department because it had been responsible for the work in the beginning.
  There is nothing spectacular about this side of the work of the Corporation, but it is a job that someone has to do and the Corporation is doing it well. After all, its work yields a small revenue which, if put alongside running expenses, is good, considering how short a time the Corporation has been in existence. There are those who expect more, but I think they do so because they do not really appreciate what public research involves. Large sums of money are being spent on defence research and to be effective it has to reach results which can be put into practice; that is to say, it has to be essentially inventive, but it by no means follows that it results in a large number of inventions or innovations which have a commercial use. On the contrary, I suspect that commercial use is exceptional and marginal, so that so far as defence research is concerned, whatever is coming into the Research Development Corporation is not likely to yield any large numbers of commercially exploitable inventions.
  If, on the other hand, we turn to public research in the civilian field there is an entirely different pattern. Here I would say that it is exceptional for the work to be inventive. It is fundamental research, involving analysis and testing, but, unlike defence research, it is seldom essentially inventive. I am not saying this by way of criticism. The scientists and the research workers concerned are doing the job they have been set to do. Inventions may and do arise, but they are a relatively small by-product.
  That is why I think it important to strengthen the powers of the Corporation so that it may foster the germ of an invention which may have commercial -possibilities and bring it from the potential stage to the point of production. I
  1632
  am not one of those who think that inventions are lying about two a penny in the back rooms of scientists and research workers. I know that the Corporation has to spend endless time sifting and testing projects and that it is no easy task to find the right ones. I therefore welcome the extended powers which are to be given under this Bill.
  Let us consider for a moment what is involved in any project. First, there is the original inventive idea; secondly, the research which turns the idea into some kind of practice; thirdly, the pilot stage or the development of the prototype; and, finally, all the preparatory work preceding actual production. So far the Corporation has been mainly concerned with the third stage and, of course, to some extent with the last. The new power means that the Corporation can come in earlier if necessary and if no one else is going to do the job that is needed. If anyone else can do it, so much the better, but there will be cases where the Corporation can help in these earlier stages.
  It is important that we should appreciate that we are concerned not only with whether a thing is done, but when it is done. We are concerned not only that worthwhile projects should be undertaken, but, also, that they should be undertaken quickly before someone else, somewhere else in the world, beats us to it in a new market for a new product. This power to help research, in the words which the right hon. Gentleman quoted from the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy
  "to perform the vital function of identifying new needs;"
  is essential for the continued well-being of the Corporation.
  As I understand, the stages which I have outlined become cumulatively more difficult and cumulatively even more expensive. The final production stage may well cost five, 10 or even 20 times as much as the pilot stage. Not only is there expensive tooling up in many cases, but it often means that plant and organisation are obsolete. It is not always easy for a firm to take the risk or to find the capital, even if it appreciates the desirability of the innovation or the new project or process. I say again that time is of the greatest importance. It appears as though American business

  1633
  concerns are more ready or more able to plunge in, to take big risks, and to rely on the fact that the first comer in the field is the person who reaps the immediate large sales and often large profits.
  In that connection, I was very glad to hear the President of the Board of Trade refer to the method of placing a development contract. I think that that method has much to commend it, and the quotation which the right hon. Gentleman gave us from the last Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy can, I think, be followed up by a further more specific quotation relating to the Corporation. Having discussed the place of research associations, the Council goes on to say:
  "Not all the research associations are sufficiently mature to be linked with a scheme such as this; 40 per cent. of the research associations have been started since the war, and it would be a mistake to force the younger ones too precipitately into the development field. Here we suggest that the National Research Development Corporation might help. The association could identify requirements, e.g. for new types of machinery. They could place a design contract with a suitable firm and then call on the Corporation for its help in further development. In some cases Government help might be needed at the design contract stage, but we believe that, in general, industry should bear the costs involved."
  Where industry can do the job alone, there is no need for the Corporation to be involved, but I am sure there will be cases where a firm needs help in the early stages. Sometimes we may find a project involving a number of different parties where the Corporation might very well be the co-ordinating instrument in bringing those parties together in order to go ahead with the particular project. But we must be clear what this means. We should not mince our words. The truth is that the National Research Development Corporation is now inevitably involved, though in a very modest way, in the provision of risk capital. I do not know the relationship that exists between the Corporation and the finance corporations for industry, especially the I.C.F.C, but I imagine that they have to work together.
  There are very great limitations on the way in which the I.C.F.C. works—I think they are well known—and I know of cases in the past where there was need not for help to extend a going concern, but for help in financing an entirely
  1634
  new venture arising from some new invention or innovation. I believe that in the long run development expenditure yields national dividends. I have no doubt that many of our newer exports have only been made possible by the use of substantial public funds on research and development.
  The electronic computator or electronic brain is a case in point. I do not know, but I certainly hope that this extraordinary product of British science and skill will, in due course, earn us money in the export markets of the world. There are other things here, such as the light steam engine, to which reference is made in the Report. This engine would be an absolute god send in many parts of the world. At this time last year I was in West Africa, and I am quite sure that there are many parts of West Africa that would benefit by having this highly original prime mover of a kind that could be used for many purposes. It would be wrong for me this afternoon to take up the time of the House going over the other possibilities, but I think that the ones which I have quoted may provide us with export earnings.
  Finally, I wish to say a word about the relationship of the Measure which we are discussing to the broader economic picture. In paragraph 8 of the last Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy it says:
  "Today, we can hardly expect to live by our industry unless we change the pattern of our production and seek to develop new products and processes, which, by depending on the application of our scientific and engineering skills—and these are as good as those of any country—will keep us in the forefront."
  The paragraph goes on to say:
  "Last year only £34 million out of a total of £2,500 million of overseas exports represented goods…which were unknown before the war. Even if we include such things as newer types of aircraft, the figure still falls short of £200 million, or 10 per cent, of the total of United Kingdom exports. Only continued emphasis on new and more efficient methods of production, and on new product development, as opposed to mere extension of existing production, can provide our manufacturing industry with the advantages it requires in the competitive world of international trade."
  In paragraph 16—immediately relevant to the work of the Corporation—it says:
  "With our economy severely strained by the excessive demands made on it in recent years, and with industry mainly occupied in

  1635
  maintaining and modernising the production of established goods and services, it is clear that any extensive move into newer fields will be very slow unless deliberate efforts are made to bring it about."
  It is elsewhere that we shall look for the great bulk of these deliberate efforts, but it is within the field of the work of the Corporation that we shall also find some of these deliberate efforts to which reference is made in the Report.
  I have recently been reading a somewhat difficult book by Professor Rostow entitled, "The Process of Economic Growth." In this book the author uses certain somewhat original concepts including what he calls "propensities." Three of these he puts in this way. First of all, the propensity to develop fundamental science; secondly, the propensity to apply science to economic needs, and, thirdly, the propensity to accept innovations.
  If I had the time this afternoon, I believe I could show that the distribution of our resources at the present time is such as to produce a lack of balance between the resources devoted to fundamental research and those devoted to development. I believe that they are out of balance, and that it is possible to demonstrate that statistically. I am not suggesting that we should do less about fundamental research, but I am insisting that we ought to do more about development.
  When the economic history of our generation comes to be written, I believe it will record that our propensity to apply science to economic needs was too weak. I believe it will record that our propensity to accept innovations was too weak. I also believe that our economic future depends in large measure not only on the quality of the scientists, research workers and technicians, but on how we use them. The greatest contribution that could be made now to the long-term solution of our balance of payments problem would be to increase the resources that are devoted to this kind of development. I welcome the Bill as a modest—perhaps I should say a very modest—step in what I believe to be essentially the right direction.
  4.30 p.m.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield: I also welcome the Bill. I have something of a personal interest in it because about 12 years ago I had lunch
  1636
  with the present secretary of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, Commander Powell, and Mr. Bennett, also of that Committee. We discussed the possibility of forming a corporation such as the National Research Development Corporation. As a result of that discussion, we prepared a memorandum which was put before the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. Towards the end of the war, that Committee made representations for the setting up of just such a corporation as was set up. It made those representations to a Cabinet Committee, which favourably considered them. Then, after the war, the Socialist Government implemented those representations in the Act of 1948
  The history of the Corporation is one of support from all parties. I remember very well that, in the early days when we discussed possible functions, the critics said that the existing industrial research organisations were sufficient to enable inventions to be developed properly. They said that either the Corporation would be so cautious in its expenditure of public funds that it would do no good, or it would be wildly extravagant and there would be unjustifiable expenditure. In fact, because of most capable management, we have seen cautious but satisfactory progress.
  In the early days when we discussed the need for a corporation, our minds ran very much along the lines described by the right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards). We considered the need for the speedier application of inventions and the quicker development of the results of research for the benefit of mankind. We thought that inventors who perhaps had difficulty with industry would be able to approach the Corporation and, as a result, there would be a speeding up of the application of inventions.
  There is no doubt that the Corporation is of value to the inventor. He feels that there is an organisation to which he can submit his inventions for impartial consideration, whereas perhaps industry might want to do him down for some reason, or not wish to take up the invention. The fact that we have a National Research Development Corporation gives confidence to inventors. That is highly satisfactory. On the whole, we can congratulate Lord Halsbury and his staff on

  1637
  the excellent work done in the last five years. There is no reason why the value of the work should not be shown in increased returns to the National Exchequer from different parts of the world and in various ways. That is exactly what we want. It is only by living on our wits, as the Duke of Edinburgh so rightly said not long ago, that we can hope to maintain our standard of living.
  I ask the Minister whether those in Government Departments who make inventions receive any benefit. I put that question because in industry usually a firm has an arrangement with its research staff that, when a man makes an invention, patents for it are taken out jointly in the name of the individual and the firm. The firm pays the overheads and provides the means for research, but it is the brain of the individual which produces the invention. There is a partnership, and it is only right that in such a partnership both the firm and the individual should benefit.
  I should like to know whether that procedure is followed in Government Research Departments. Do people who invent something benefit in partnership with their Department? Such an arrangement would be an excellent incentive. Human nature being what it is. it would be most beneficial. The Corporation is the medium for commercially exploiting the inventions made in Government Departments. The Corporation does a lot of extremely useful work and it ought to be rewarded for it; but part of the financial return by way of royalties should go to the Government Department concerned and to the people in that Department just as if they were employed by an outside firm. The Corporation in partnership with firms develops new inventions. I should like to feel that the same kind of practice as exists in industry also exists in Government Departments.
  The Bill, modest as it has rightly been called, is useful in that it enables the Corporation which has made a promising start to continue its activities and also to widen its power to do useful work. The results of research and development do not become obvious for some time. The life of a patent is something of the order of 16 years. After an invention it may take up to four years to bring the product from the laboratory stage through the prototype and into production.
  1638
  Clearly, much of the work done by the Corporation in the past four or five years will show its results in the next 10 or 15 years. The steady increase in revenue from royalties to meet the expenditure is most satisfactory. I should have been alarmed if I had seen spectacular results. They are not wanted. A steady, increasing development shows that the Corporation is being managed on the right line.
  I should like from the Government back benches to express appreciation of the work of the managing director and his staff in this most important field of developing inventions and making available at the earliest possible moment the results of research in Government Departments in the United Kingdom.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Austen Albu: The Bill by which the National Research Development Corporation was first set up was introduced a few months before I entered the House, but I remember that the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), who played such a distinguished part as Chairman of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee on that occasion, gave his full support to the Bill in face of the extremely heavily facetious humour which at that time we were accustomed to expect from the present Colonial Secretary. His support, however, was justified and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) has said, the Colonial Secretary's criticisms were not, because there is no doubt that the Corporation has fulfilled its function. That function was described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) when he introduced the Bill. It is quite a narrow function.
  As has been said, its main function has been to ensure the development and commercial exploitation of inventions originating in Government establishments, hospitals and universities. Experience of the Corporation and its annual reports show that there is not a vast number of private inventions at present which cannot find development. I wonder whether this does not belie the argument which is sometimes used that lack of risk capital is holding back the development of inventions, except to a small extent and perhaps more along the lines which have been mentioned by my right hon. Friend.

  1639
  It may be that long-shot inventions and inventions which for final application in production require a very heavy capital expenditure may be held back, but I do not think that there is any argument that a great number of inventions are not being developed by industry through lack of capital, at any rate in the early stages. It is clear from the inventions which have been communicated to the Corporation over the last three years, for which it has reported, that out of a total of 3,036only 1,242 were inventions from private sources, whether individuals or industrial undertakings. About one-third of the total number of inventions led to serious discussions, but only a tiny fraction to any final agreement for their commercial exploitation. It is interesting that of this total one-sixth of the public inventions have now reached a stage of being actually in operation in industry. The proportion of private inventions is very much smaller.
  This may not be very surprising in view of the overwhelming concentration of scientific skill and knowledge, outside the universities and the Government and public research establishments, in large industrial establishments, which are capable of carrying out developments themselves. I do not know of any figures that are available in this country, but a very interesting report has been published recently in the United States which shows that the situation is just the same over there. The report is made by the United States Department of Defence and is entitled" Scientific Research and Development in American Industry."
  It shows that in 1951 three-quarters of all the research workers out of a sample of about 2,000 firms investigated were in the aircraft, electrical machinery, chemicals, scientific instruments and machinery industries. About half of the work which was being done was being done for Government establishments. Two-thirds of all the research engineers and scientists were employed by 220 companies with 5,000 or more employees—only 11 per cent. of the whole sample. It is interesting to note, by the way, that the amount spent on research represented about 2 per cent. of turnover compared with 1·4 per cent. of firms investigated by the F.B.I, at about the same time.
  It would be interesting to know what proportion of research which is being
  1640
  undertaken by industry in this country is for defence and what for civilian use. It is difficult to obtain accurate figures of the amounts that are being spent on research development by industry and the Government as a whole. I have tried to make an estimate. As far as I can see, the total amount spent in 1951 on industrial research and development was £268 million, of which civilian research appeared to account for £70 million. It is extremely difficult to provide figures because, undoubtedly, there is some overlapping. In view of the very large amount of money which is at present being spent on Government account for research and the inevitable by-products of defence research, it seems to me that the Corporation has a very important job indeed in ensuring that the fruits of this research are used in industry not only for defence purposes but for civilian purposes as well.
  It must be quite clear to nearly everybody that our developments in civilian jet aircraft are by-products of a very large amount of money spent on research and development of military aircraft. One of the examples given in the annual report of the Corporation, that of an invention in plastic structures, is based upon work that is being done to some extent in industry but is largely being co-ordinated at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, at Farnborough. That is a good example of work done primarily for defence purposes producing inventions which, through the medium of the Corporation, can find applications in industry.
  Reference has been made to Clause 2, which is perhaps the main new aspect in the Bill, and particularly Clause 2 (2) which is intended to enable the Corporation to carry out the recommendations of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy for the placing of research and development contracts for civilian purposes. It is undoubtedly a very useful Clause, but probably its use is rather narrow. There is no doubt that it might be, and should be, used to stimulate backward industries. To a large extent the major industries, especially those with large and very active industrial research associations, can look after themselves. Some of them feel some anxiety about Clause 2 (2) on the ground that it might lead to some overlapping. The President has referred to that point.
  I hope that it is intended that Clause 2 (4) shall be used not purely in a ham-

  1641
  pering sense, but to ensure that there is full co-operation between the Corporation and others in the same field and that suitable machinery for co-operation will be set up. There is certainly a feeling in some industrial research associations that sometimes projects in their field are carried on at Government establishments of which no one outside knows anything at all. The result is that overlapping takes place.
  If the Parliamentary Secretary could develop that point it would reassure industrial research associations and others who are engaged in this field. Apart from its work for the exploitation of public inventions in the research and development field, the main use of the Corporation perhaps falls in between one of the limits which are normally fixed in particular industries, or between particular fields of scientific method, where a whole number of scientific methods are required to solve a problem. It is here that very often a new idea falls down because there is no existing organisation with enough experience or interest to carry it through.
  Industry is fairly good on the short-term things but the medium-sized and smaller industries certainly are not so good at looking into the developing long-term projects, particularly revolutionary changes in process methods. Many of these new changes in method, of course, involve completely new scientific knowledge and new types of skill for which very often production engineers and managers or those responsible for production in an industry have no background knowledge, skill and experience.
  It is important to try to fill a gap which sometimes seems to exist in this sort of case. The great growth of modern chemical engineering has produced a whole range of new materials for which new machines and equipment have to be used so that they can be turned into goods. Very often the people in the industries concerned have too narrow an experience to exploit them. One example which comes to mind and seems to fit very much into this Clause of carrying out research and development likely to lead to inventions satisfying specific practical requirements is that of machine tools required in the aircraft industry.
  I do not know whether the President read a report of the remarks of Mr. Woodley, of Vickers Armstrong, at the
  1642
  recent conference on aircraft production, in which he was strongly critical, either of the industry itself or of the machine tool manufacturers, for not looking ahead to produce the large forging presses and other types of machine tools that would be required for what is known in the industry as "the shape of wings to come." It is no good producing completely revolutionary designs, and very often basing them on revolutionary materials, if revolutionary methods by which the goods may be produced are not also devised. Very often the Corporation ought to step into this field.
  I wish to refer to a remark of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone on payment to Departments. I think that if there were a representative from the Treasury present, although it is a House of Commons responsibility, there would be very strong objections to removing control of expenditure from a Department. But the hon. Member is on a good point. I believe that there is some sort of advisory committee which looks into the question of payments to civil servants for inventions. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can deal with the matter, which, I think, is very important. I hope that some way of giving credit to Departments may be found, even if it is not financial. We must not overlook the fact that the Corporation will not only be an earner of foreign exchange, as we hope, but may soon be a substantial dollar earner. I believe that much of the work in developing electronic computers may be a dollar earner.
  Recently I saw a report on the process of printing by electronic circuits, a new development. But I understand that this is one in which the Corporation is interested and that it is largely based on a British invention. What worries me is that Americans always seem to be publishing new ideas as if they had suddenly produced them. Very often we find that they are British inventions, and that we are to get substantial royalties from them. The Corporation, or someone, should do a little boosting for some of these inventions which appear in American trade or technical papers as if Americans had suddenly produced them. I know that very often there are commercial and other secrets which prevent the explanation of the true relationships between the Corporation and some of its licensees. Nevertheless, I think we should

  1643
  get a good deal more credit for some of the development work going on in this country in the last few years. There is no doubt at all that only in this way shall we solve our balance of payments problem.
  The future of this country can only lie in our selling more and more goods that others have not learned how to make—as I have said very often. We must not concentrate on competition of price, which would lower the standard of living of our people, but on the competition in brains and invention. In that way there is no doubt that the Corporation can play a very significant, although, we agree, a limited part. It can have a specific effect in stimulating some of the backward industries and smaller research establishments and act as a stimulus to the rest of industry in what I consider to be one of the most important features of our public life today.
  4.55 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Fort: My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) referred to one of the reasons why he and others associated with him on the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee originally promoted the ideas which led to this Bill. That is now nearly 10 years ago. He mentioned private inventors fearing that their inventions would not be taken up by private industry. That fear has been expressed on various occasions, but whenever it has been investigated by impartial bodies, such as the Swan Committee a few years ago, it has always been discovered to be founded on singularly little fact.
  Far from not wanting to take up inventions, industry—which to a great extent lives on inventions—is leaning over backwards to find ideas which it can take up and develop. The private inventor, if he has any real originality or anything which is commercially practicable, is immediately welcomed. How few inventions by private inventors can be taken up is shown not only by the broad statement I have made, but by figures which the Corporation has given in its appendix. It shows the striking disparity between the number of inventions communicated to the Corporation in the last year by private firms and individuals—which is more than 300—and the number of patent rights actually assigned to the
  1644
  Corporation, which is 11. I think that shows that a great many of the communications had nothing in them of substantial importance.
  Clause 2 is important in clarifying the Corporation's legal position. But it also brings out a rather important principle in the whole problem of developing patents. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) has been talking of a recent and extensive study in America. He pointed out that a large number of patents in America, where they are blessed with more statistics than we ordinarily are, have been granted to individuals working in large corporations there. I think that is a comment on two very important factors in this situation and should be clearly understood.
  The first is how often a modern invention comes not from a single man having a brilliant idea of his own but from teams of people, each contributing a specialised knowledge to the problem which has to be solved. On the whole, those teams of people are in large corporations. There have been memorable exceptions in small corporations in America, such as Universal Oil Products, which originated the oil-cracking patents.
  The other important feature is that patents not supported by "know-how," that is, experience and technical information, are unpractical things. What those who are to exploit the patents want is not only the claims, in the written documents, and the knowledge of scientific principles on which the claims are based, but also the whole technical knowledge of how to put those ideas into actual practice. That "know-how" is far more likely to be acquired by a group of people working together.
  Clause 2 of this Bill seems to me to be necessary, not only to clarify the original Act, but to make an important addition to it if the Corporation is to do what it was intended to do. As I understand it, the Corporation has felt, in regard to many of these inventions from Government Departments and universities, that it has been legally inhibited from undertaking the necessary development work on an idea incorporated in a patent—without having the necessary "know-how"—to make it possible to interest private industry in exploiting what may be a good idea.

  1645
  The industry itself may hesitate to undertake the development work necessary, or it may feel that the bare patent is not sufficient in itself, because there is uncertainty as to where it will lead. I think the position of the Corporation will be strengthened by the new or more clearly defined powers contained in Clause 2. We all wish to ensure that these patents will bring benefit to our industries in the various ways which have been outlined, and I think the proportion will be much higher if their development can be carried a step further than the Corporation has found possible to do in the past.
  It is clear from this debate and from the reports published by the Corporation, that one of its main functions is to be an organisation to which may turn those who are not quite certain about who are the right people to contact with an idea expressed in a patent. It has undertaken wide activities even with the rather uncertain powers it has possessed up to now. It has acted as a sort of catch-all for technical information which does not fall into clearly defined departments.
  It is a great credit to the management of the Corporation that it has built up such a reputation. When some technical problem arises in Government or university circles and no one is certain how to take advantage of the benefits which may be apparent upon its solution, people have confidence in the National Research Development Corporation to consult it and find out if such benefits can be fitted into some industrial organisation.
  One learns from the reports of the large number and extraordinary range of projects which the Corporation has been asked to undertake, including those connected with raw materials, for cortisone, with liquid gas plants, and with light steam engines—about which I know considerable hopes are entertained in the under-developed parts of the world—and so on. This whole range of activities is possible because the management has built up this sense of confidence to which I have referred and which it will be possible to increase by the provision of these additional powers. The Corporation will be enabled to put ideas before manufacturers and others interested with rather more "know-how" attached to them, and in a stage of greater development, which will make the use of such ideas even
  1646
  more marked in the coming years than at present.
  Although this small Bill will not revolutionise the industrial life of this country, it refers to an organisation which has made a very useful, if not an overwhelmingly important, contribution to our industrial life. In adopting the provisions contained in this Measure, we shall be sending that organisation on its way with even better chances of success in its activities than during the past years.
  5.6 p.m.
  Mr. M. Philips Price: Like the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), I remember very well when the National Research Development Corporation Bill was first discussed in this House. At that time I occupied the position of chairman of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which the hon. Member now holds. I remember that there was general agreement on both sides of the House about the value of that Measure though there were some discordant notes which we have not had today. Particularly were they evident in the expressions of the present Colonial Secretary who, I think I may say without offence, was not exactly at his best on that occasion. It is gratifying to note the agreement today about the importance of this small Measure.
  The development of industry over recent years indicates that a body such as the National Research Development Corporation is increasingly necessary. It fills gaps which need to be filled. Over a large area of our national economic life we now have public utility corporations, or publicly owned corporations, and we need a body which can do what for the moment private industry cannot perform. It is now all the more important for our export trade that we should be at the top in the efficiency of our production. For some time past a weakness in our industry has been that, although we are first-rate in pure science and lead the world in that respect, we are still not up to the level of America in the application of scientific discoveries to industry; although to some extent, as a result of our efforts, we are narrowing the gap.
  Recently, I was in the Middle East and had occasion to see some of the competition which our exports there have to meet. I found, in Iraq, that we have lost bridge

  1647
  buildings contracts to the Germans. Some say that that is due to the fact that the Germans are not putting in the same quality of material that we put in, and that our workmanship is still the best in the world. That I am prepared to believe. On the other hand, there are those who say that in bridge building the Germans have found some way of lowering their costs which is not, as yet, clear to us. I do not say that that is true, but it may well be, and if so, it is certainly a matter which requires investigation. We must be ready on every occasion to ensure that we are not caught out by any scientific invention which the Germans—or the Japanese for that matter—may be applying to industry and which we are not.
  It is often the case that to lower costs and meet competition a new scientific invention can be introduced to maintain, and even extend, our exports. As has already been stated in the debate, there are many large firms which are engaged in their own research and can give a very good account of themselves. It is rather more difficult for smaller firms to find resources for research and development of inventions. Judging by the Sixth Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, it seems as if we are still tending to stick to the old lines in our export trade. Figures were quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) which appeared to show that new types of exports are still far too low a percentage of out total exports.
  At the same time, we can lead the world in certain forms of production, as with the jet aircraft. Government research and development contracts have, of course, gone a long way in assisting the aeroplane industry. The trouble in the case of small industries is that there is too long a time lag between the discovery of a scientific principle and its application to industry. Some small industries could not afford, even if they had the resources, to look ahead far enough. They require relatively quick results. It is for the purpose of looking ahead for some years and discovering something which will bring results before many years pass, even if it does not do so immediately, that we require further development of the Corporation and its powers.
  1648
  From the legal angle, it appears that the 1948 Act did not possess the powers which ought to exist now. At any rate, if there is any doubt about it, that doubt ought to be removed, as seems to be the case under the Bill. The Corporation ought to be able to take the initiative, look for new scientific processes and initiate research into practical developments for industry.
  It is also necessary that the Corporation should have very close relations with the research associations which are financed partly by private industry and partly by the D.S.I.R. These are very important research associations in all forms of industry. The Sixth Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy says, on page 8:
  "The associations could identify requirements, e.g., for new types of industry…and then call on the Corporation for its help in further development."
  I believe that the Bill will go some way towards making that possible. There appears to be no doubt about it. Clause 2 (3) says:
  "Subject to the provisions of this section, where it appears to the Corporation that a course of research has resulted in any discovery such that the continuation of the research may lead to inventions of practical importance, the Corporation shall have power to assist the continuation of the research."
  That certainly gives the Corporation powers which will enable it to exploit a new and fruitful form of activity.
  I noted that the President of the Board of Trade rather took the view that the Corporation had spent less than £1 million because there had not yet been sufficient time for inventions to develop. I hope that that is so, but when I saw the figures I could not help feeling that it might also be due to the fact that the Corporation's sphere of activity was not sufficiently wide. Anyway, I am sure that the country is very much indebted to the chairman, Lord Halsbury, for the able way in which he has managed the Corporation so far, and I am sure he will make the fullest use of the increased powers contained in the Bill.
  Mr. J. Edwards: My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that Lord Halsbury is the managing director and not the chairman of the Corporation.
  Mr. Philips Price: I apologise for that slip.

  1649
  We can all welcome the Bill in that it provides a new source of power which industry needs. I repeat that it is vital for our export trade that we should be absolutely up to scratch. During the last few months I have seen evidence that some of our exports in the Middle East are in danger and I believe that that is the case in other parts of the world as well. We must not only not lose ground but also gain ground if we are to close the gap in our balance of payments. I believe that the Bill will help somewhat in solving the problem.
  5.16 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): The Bill has had a most friendly reception from every quarter of the House. That is a tribute not merely to the fact that everything we seek to do in the Bill commands the assent of hon. Members, but also to the work of the Corporation. I was very glad that the right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) paid a deserved tribute to the Corporation and that hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed with him.
  There has been some discussion about the position and importance of the private inventor. Several hon. Members have mentioned that the number of private inventions which has been developed by the Corporation is small, as one would expect, compared with the number which has come from Government Departments and publicly financed research, and so forth. It may be wise to remind ourselves what the Corporation has said on this subject. It dealt with the matter at some length in its first Annual Report, which is a most admirable statement of the way it has proceeded and co-operated with the various organisations in the country with which co-operation is so important.
  On page 7 of the First Annual Report there are three paragraphs dealing with the private inventor which answer a number of questions put by hon. Members. The Report states:
  "The statistics given in Section 7 indicates that of 485 inventions submitted from this source 358 were rejected and 105 were in a form too incomplete to permit the Corporation to form any opinion as to their merit. The greater part were of an obviously minor nature, and only three survived the test of assessment by experts. In two of these cases
  1650
  the inventor was willing to collaborate with the Corporation on terms judged equitable by both parties. In the third case the inventor eventually made private arrangements for finance.
  A significant number of the submissions from the private inventor show that too many inventors, either through inability or unwillingness to keep in touch with current trends in technical progress, devote energy and effort to devising inventions which industry either does not want or cannot use without complete dislocation or reconstruction. This experience is not exceptional and is paralleled by that of other organisations elsewhere. This does not mean, however, that the Corporation does not give the most careful examination and consideration to all inventions submitted to it which appear to have some technical merit or economic value.
  By contrast with this state of affairs it is of interest that all three of the inventions selected by the Corporation as meriting public support lay in the domain of applied mechanical engineering and all three were the designs of qualified engineers with experience in the inventive field to which they had directed their attention."
  What the Corporation has said on the subject of private inventors in its Second Annual Report explains, I think, why comparatively few of the inventions coming from this source came within its terms of reference. At the bottom of page 8 it says:
  "Notwithstanding the fact that we do not accept responsibility for these inventions, few if any of which would fall within the field covered by any reasonable interpretation of the words 'public interest,' we endeavour to put the inventor in touch with likely entrepreneurs or possible users if any are known to us and in one or two cases we know that this has led to a successful association of the parties.
  Our own interpretation of the Corporation's responsibility to the private investor lies along the lines of paying for the development work necessary to give practical embodiment to immature but fertile ideas of a sufficient public importance. This can, in our opinion, be best achieved by demonstrating a fully engineered prototype to 'a firm engaged in the industry concerned' and thereby proving that the invention is a sound one. It is along these lines that we have been working."
  That is the attitude which the Corporation has taken to private inventors, and I think it is a line which was fully justified and which the House approves.
  The right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) added, I think excellently, to the quotations which my right hon. Friend had made in opening the debate from the Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy which was published

  1651
  last July. I agree with the importance of the further quotation which the right hon. Gentleman made, which, I quite agree, had a direct bearing on the problem before us. I think I am right in saying that while the House will have an opportunity to consider that matter further at a later stage, the powers necessary to achieve what the Advisory Committee wish are conferred by the amendments to the law that we are introducing in Clause 2, about which I will say more in a moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) asked me an important question about the position of inventors in a Government Department. I think I should draw his attention to the fact that this is dealt with in the Second Annual Report of the Corporation. The position is that if a Government servant, in the course of his work, makes an invention of substance, the question of a reward is an ex gratia matter. Nevertheless, if the invention is exploited commercially, an ex gratia payment can be made. The matter is dealt with in the Appendix to the Second Annual Report, which contains a direction to the Corporation from the Board of Trade and, as an Appendix to that direction by the Board of Trade, a Treasury Circular to the Departments.
  Perhaps I should read paragraph five of that Circular, which I think answers my hon. Friend's question:
  "Their Lordships consider that it will be appropriate for Departments to determine the amount of the awards (if any) to be made to their officers in respect of the commercial exploitation of their inventions by the Corporation. The Corporation are in agreement with this and will be prepared to pay out of their receipts the amounts which Departments certify as reasonable and proper. Departments should, however, consult with the Corporation in each case on the question of the commercial value of the invention concerned, and, where appropriate, the Corporation should be represented by assessors on Departmental Awards Committees."
  The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), who explained to me that he would be unable to be present during my speech owing to an important function which he has to perform in the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, raised some interesting questions. He was quite right in assuming that the object of subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 2 was not to discourage the use of the new powers con-
  1652
  ferred by subsections (2) and (3), but merely to avoid the overlapping which he said certain of the research associations feared. I quite agree with what has been said on both sides of the House about the utility of these new powers.
  Let us take the sort of case in which it is necessary or desirable to have these provisions in order to prevent overlapping. Obviously, most work in the development of inventions and discovery is done by industry in its own laboratories and on its own initiative. In the majority of cases in which Government help is needed, it is expected that it will be provided by the existing machinery of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research or the other Government Departments.
  There may, however, be occasional cases in which the Corporation can properly serve either as manager or paymaster or both in a process of research and development. Let us take, for instance, the case, which I think the hon. Member put to me, where the subject does not fall wholly within the province of a single research association, or where the research has to be done in a field of technology in which the Corporation already has considerable experience. In those cases, it may be convenient that the research shall be done by the Corporation under the new powers conferred by subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 2 of this Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) dealt with certain points with which I have already dealt, and also paid a deserved tribute to the value of the Corporation in providing a centre to which anybody who had a valuable invention but did not know how to proceed might go, at any rate, for advice. I think that this body at present fills a great need, not only on account of what it has already done, which has been mentioned both by my right hon. Friend in opening the debate and by other hon. Members since, but in giving confidence to inventors that their ideas can be and will be considered by an expert body.
  The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price), who has always taken great interest in this whole subject as I remember from many previous debates, pointed out that, in spite of our great skill or indeed pre-eminence in

  1653
  certain branches of pure science, in the development and exploitation of these ideas, we have sometimes lagged behind in comparison with some of our competitors, and that it was important that this should no longer be the case.
  I think it was the hon. Member for Edmonton, but it may have been the right hon. Gentleman who opened for the Opposition, who mentioned that the development and exploitation of the ingenuity which led to these inventions might produce very important returns in dollars. That is undoubtedly the case, and one hon. Member mentioned the invention or group of inventions popularly referred to as the electronic brain. I assure the House that the necessary patents have been taken out so that these ideas are protected all over the world, and it may well be that these developments will produce the return which various hon. Members have mentioned and desire.
  The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West also mentioned, and said he was a little worried about, the comparatively small sum which had so far been spent by the Corporation, but I do not think that any such deduction as he feared should be drawn from that fact. The actual amount spent by the Corporation is largely a matter of chance, and it does not necessarily give any measure of the work which they are doing. For instance, if they are able to place an invention with an industry prepared to do the entire development and exploitation of the patent, the Corporation reserving, of course, a right to receive royalties, the invention may then be developed without any great expense to the Corporation except the expenditure on the patent, and so forth. Another reason for the small expenditure is that there has been no really major invention which they have had to develop, though that position may be altered at any moment. What I would impress on hon. Members is that the
  1654
  amount of money which the Corporation has expended gives no indication of the importance or, indeed, the amount of work which it is doing.
  I have, in the course of my reply, dealt, I think, with the various points raised in all quarters of the House. The Government very much welcome the friendly reception of this Bill, which they have no hesitation in commending to the House as a very useful Measure, and they hope for its early passage into law.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Vosper.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the period during which advances may be made to the National Research Development Corporation out of the Consolidated Fund and during which the Board of Trade may waive interest on such advances, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) any increase in the sums which in accordance with section eleven of the Development of Inventions Act, 1948, fall to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund or raised under the National Loans Act, 1939, or in accordance with section twelve of that Act fall to be paid into the Exchequer or issued out of the Consolidated Fund and applied in redeeming or paying off debt or paying interest;

  (b) any waiver of interest in accordance with section eight of that Act;

  being an increase or waiver attributable to extending the said period.—[Mr. H. Strauss.]
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  CURRENCY AND BANK NOTES BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Clause 1.—(ISSUE AND RECALL OF BANK NOTES BY BANK OF ENGLAND.)
  5.36 p.m.
  The Chairman: Mr. Norman Smith. Page 1. line 17.
  Mr. Norman Smith: On a point of order. Do I correctly understand, Sir Charles, that it is not your intention to select the first Amendment on the Order Paper, which is in my name?
  The Chairman: No; in any case, the first Amendment is not in the hon. Member's name; but I am calling the second Amendment, to line 17, which is in the name of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Smith: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, after "denominations," to insert "exceeding ten shillings."
  Perhaps the Committee could take this Amendment and the next Amendment together, because they stand or fall together.
  The Chairman: That can be done, with the leave of the Committee.
  Mr. Smith: Thank you, Sir Charles.
  The Amendments are intended to tidy up Clause 1, which, at the moment, has a very extraordinary effect. Subsection (4) lays it down that the holder of bank notes of any denomination shall be able, in certain circumstances, to go into the Bank of England and to receive in exchange for them notes of a lower denomination, that is to say, bank notes which for the time being are legal tender, as he may specify.
  The point of the Amendment is that there is no bank note of a lower denomination than the 10s. note. It says on the face of the 10s. bank note, over the signature of a gentleman who is described as the "Chief Cashier" and whose signature is not very clear—I think it is "P. S. Beale"—that the Bank of England
  "promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of Ten Shillings."
  1656
  If the Bill lays it down that we may take a £1 note to the Bank of England and say, "I want two 10s. notes for it, which I am entitled to have under the statute," the same Bill ought to lay down what we are entitled to do with the 10s. note, on which there is printed this promise to pay.
  In the present state of the law, that promise on the 10s. bank note does not mean anything at all, unless we take it at its face value and assume that it means 10 shillings in the cupro-nickel coinage of this Realm. If it means that, there is no need for me to proceed with my Amendment. If it does not mean that, and unless anybody is entitled to take as many 10s. notes as he has into the Bank of England during certain office hours and say, "I want to get rid of these 10s. notes and have cupro-nickel coins," the promise is quite meaningless and the law needs tightening up.
  I should like to make a test case of it, but I happen to be a shy and retiring person. I should like to take a 10s. note into the Bank of England. Unfortunately, I have not enough cheek to do that sort of thing. There are other hon. and right hon. Friends of mine who are less retiring than I am, and who would brazenly go into the Bank of England, plank quite a number of these notes down on the counter and say, "I have come for the shillings which the Bank of England promises me in respect of each of these notes."
  After all, the whole of this currency business is shrouded about with a lot of unnecessary mystery, not to say superstition. Most people in the country are entirely ignorant of the whole subject. It would not be unreasonable for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to reply, "What is the hon. Member worrying about? The thing works. Ten shilling notes do change hands, and have been changing hands ever since 1914, in one form or another. People do accept them and have confidence in them, and if the promise does not mean anything, who cares?"
  Quite a lot of symbols in our contemporary civilisation are, I suppose, utterly meaningless, and perhaps this is one of them, and does not matter much. I ask the Financial Secretary to say what the position is about these 10s. notes, and what the promise to pay means, if it means anything at all.
  Mr. Ian Horobin: I am not sure that the Amendment is as innocuous as the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) thinks it is. It is true that in the course of time, since the £ sterling ceased to be on the gold standard, the curious promise has been on the face of the notes, but it does not mean what it originally meant.
  Few people, and certainly none of the very modernist currency experts whom I see on the Front Bench opposite, would wish to go back to a system in which gold coins in the hands of the public were a large part of our gold reserve. There are arguments on both sides of currency policy, those which are in favour of convertibility, and those which are not by people who would like it to have a gold backing. I very much doubt whether anybody would wish to see us go back by a side wind to a situation in which the public could, as of right, demand their notes to be changed to gold.
  Unless I misunderstand the effect of the Amendment, it would mean, in the form in which it is on the Paper, that those who hold a 10s. note could go to the Bank of England and demand a half-sovereign in gold for it, and certainly a coin. We might say that we had selected a coin that we wished to have. In the form in which the Amendment is drawn, if it were passed it would give the public a right to demand payment in half-sovereigns for their 10s. note. If that is the effect of the Amendment, I do not believe it will get very much support from either side of the Committee. It would be contrary to public policy, and we should be very unwise to support it.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: According to my reading of the Bill, people can tender notes for £1 and over at the Bank of England, and change those notes into some other currency, but there is nothing to say that if I hold a 10s. note I can go to the Bank and demand coins which are in current circulation. I support the Amendment on those grounds. I want it definitely stated that people can change their notes, specifically the holders of 10s. notes, and that they can submit them to the Bank of England, and can have them changed for notes or coins in current circulation and of a lower denomination.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I understand that the point which the first Amendment seeks to elucidate is the meaning of the promise to pay which is upon the notes. The point was mentioned on Second Reading, and I fully understand the wish of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) to elucidate it, since it is not very easy to follow.
  The promise to pay is a contract or acknowledgment of a debt by the Bank. The important practical effect of this arises when notes of a particular series have been demonetised or called in and have ceased to be legal tender. A note may cease to be legal tender and it may not be possible to tender it for payments where payments have to be made in legal tender, but such a note can still be cashed by presentation at the Bank.
  This is not an academic point. Hon. Members will recall that certain notes of higher denominations were called in for what I think was good and sufficient reason. That did not mean that those who held those notes after a certain date found them valueless. If they presented them to the Bank they would be paid. That is the meaning of the promise to pay.
  The second point, which arises on the second Amendment, is whether, on tendering a note, coin can be demanded. The answer is "No." The Committee will appreciate that it is "No" for a very good reason. If one were to say that the presentation of any number of these notes at the Bank entitled one to payment in coin, whether coin of one's own choice, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) or of the Bank's choice, it would theoretically mean that the holders of notes had an unlimited right to demand unlimited change. If that were carried to an extreme, it would cause some inconvenience. As the Committee knows, from time to time apparent shortages of certain coins occur, and the Royal Mint does its best to supply the demand. I have had representations made to me from certain parts of the country on this very point during the last week or two.
  The task of the Royal Mint in maintaining an adequate supply of coinage

  1659
  would be made very much more difficult if the holders of notes had the right to demand unlimited quantities of coinage on tendering the notes, and I cannot see what useful purpose would be served by conferring this right upon them. The right which exists—and the right which becomes important from a practical point of view—is that of tendering a note or promise to pay by the Bank of England and of being given in exchange currency which is legal tender. That is the vital point and I think that the Committee will agree that that is the matter which we want to safeguard and which, I think, is adequately safeguarded by the present position.
  Mr. Norman Smith: Assuming that this Amendment is agreed to and that the public take advantage of it, the Financial Secretary's argument is that it would create embarrassment, but this is England and things do not happen in that way in this country. It would create an appalling amount of embarrassment to all five clearing banks if everyone at once demanded cash across the counter, but those things do not happen here. The fact that the clearing banks are able to lend up to eight or 10 times what they have is a sufficient answer to the argument that there would be embarrassment. I think that what we ask for is reasonable.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is a great deal of difference between the amount of coin and the amount of notes in circulation. The same risk is not to be feared in respect of notes because there are probably not sufficient resources available to individuals to create that situation, but with the much more restricted amount of coinage it is—at any rate theoretically—possible that the creation of the right could create that situation, and there seems to be no practical point to be served in creating it. The only thing upon which I agree with the hon. Member is his very clear statement that this is England.
  Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I think that we are all agreed that there is not a great deal in this, but there is one point in the Financial Secretary's argument which I did not follow. As I understand it, he said that we could not have a situation where the holder of a note which was to be no longer legal
  1660
  tender could insist upon the coin for it, but he could get another note which was legal tender. In that case, if the holder wanted the coin he could then take the new note back and get it, so there is really no safeguard against the terrible danger, which the Financial Secretary suggested, that people might wish to change all their notes into coins. But perhaps I have misunderstood him?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am so sorry—it is my fault for not being clearer upon this. There is no distinction. Neither the legal tender note nor the demonetised note entitles one to that.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Norman Smith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, at the end, to insert:
  Provided that payment to a clearing bank for any notes called in from that bank under this subsection shall not have the consequential effect of diminishing the clearing bank's holding of cash at the Bank of England.
  This is a very much more serious Amendment and deals with matters of wider scope and of very great import, because under this Bill, for the first time, it is possible for the Bank of England to call in £1 and 10s. notes for the purpose of demonetising them. There was no such power before.
  Under the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928, the Bank could call them in but could not demonetise them. That point was made very clear in the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanied this Bill when it was first introduced about a year ago. Paragraph 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum contained words which I submit to the Committee are rather significant, although not so significant as their omission from the Explanatory Memorandum in respect of the Bill this year. These are the words which have been omitted from the Explanatory Memorandum of a year ago:
  "The Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928, gives the Bank power to call in, but not to demonetize, £1 and 10s. notes. Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the Bank of England to call in and demonetize their bank notes of any denomination."
  The omission of that phrase this year, I can only suppose, was the result of a desire on the part of the Government to conceal from the public—and it may be from the House—exactly what the Government were up to. If this Clause be

  1661
  enacted, then for the first time the Bank of England will hold in its hands the power to call in and demonetise £1 and 10s. notes, which constitute no less than 82½ per cent., by face value, of the total notes in circulation.
  It is a very serious thing, for two reasons, to give the Bank of England that power. The first is much less important than the second, although the first is important enough, in all conscience. This Clause is serious because it enables the monetary authorities, who are the Treasury and the Bank of England, to put their heads together to reduce the amount of currency created and put into circulation by a publicly-owned body, the Bank of England.
  As I propose to show, the inevitable corollary of that would be that the commercial banks—the so-called "big five" clearing banks affiliated to the London Bankers' Clearing House, joint stock companies owned by absentee shareholders—would be able, to the extent that these bank notes are demonetised, to create and circulate their own particular form of currency, in this case either commercial bills or, strange though it may seem, Treasury bills. It is a serious thing when the Government introduce legislation in circumstances which expose them to the accusation that they are trying to do it behind the public's back, by editing the Explanatory Memorandum and cutting out chunks from it in such a way as to hide a very relevant fact.
  There is another and more serious fact. At the present time, a recession in the United States and the possible increase in the depth of that recession is a favourite topic of writers in the financial columns of newspapers, and has been so for the best part of 12 months. There is evidence that if there be a diminution in the proportion of the total currency circulating in the form of bank notes, and if that diminution be accompanied by an increase in the privately-created currency in the form of commercial bills—in other words, if we have a smaller proportion of bank notes comprising the currency in circulation—then we have a condition which is favourable to deep depression and slump.
  If I can show, Sir Charles, that the effect of this Clause would be to take away the currency-creating power of the
  1662
  publicly-owned Bank and transfer it to privately-owned banks—greatly to their profit—and can further show that its effect will be to impose a condition favourable to a slump in this country at a time like the present, I submit I shall have made out what is really a very substantial case against this Clause, and a very substantial case for my Amendment, which seeks to put a limitation on demonetisation, namely, that it shall not have the consequential effect of diminishing the clearing bank's holding of credit at the Bank of England.
  6.0 p.m.
  I propose to trace very briefly the series of events—with which nobody is better acquainted than two of the hon. Members whom I see opposite—which would occur if Clause 1 (5) became law and the Bank of England proceeded to demonetise £1 and 10s. notes on any substantialscale. There is no need to specify the quantity of notes which they might demonetise. Let me hypothecate that they wish to demonetise £x million of £1 and 10s. notes, and that they notify the Midland Bank, saying, "We are calling these notes in and we are going to demonetise them."
  The first thing that would happen, as is provided in subsection (5), is that the Bank of England, proposing to demonetise and call in those notes, would have to pay the Midland Bank for them. It would have to give the Midland Bank a substantial consideration in exchange. This Clause lays it down that the Bank of England may call them in,
  "on payment of the face value thereof…"
  How does the Bank of England pay the face value of £x million of £1 and 10s. notes, having called them in from the Midland Bank? The Bank of England will merely give the Midland Bank a draft on its own banking department to the face value of £x million. In come the notes, and they are demonetised, but because they are demonetised there is a state of disequilibrium in the issue department of the Bank of England. £x million of notes have been called in, and those notes, by law, are covered by securities. Therefore, the securities have to come out of the issue department of the Bank of England. That is the inevitable first consequence. Those securities go into the banking department of

  1663
  the Bank of England, where they have to cover the draft which the Bank of England has paid for £xmillion worth of Treasury notes which they have called in for demonetisation.
  The transaction does not end there. If it did, it would not make sense. Next, securities which have been transferred from the issue department to the banking department are sold on the open market by the Bank of England, in an operation of the kind with which some hon. Members are quite familiar but which is not understood by the great majority of people whose education has been effected mainly by the newspapers, which do not deal in this sort of thing. The securities are sold on the open market and the draft which the Bank of England has paid the Midland Bank for the demonetised notes must then necessarily come back to the Bank of England for cancellation.
  Now let us look at the situation from the point of view of the Midland Bank. Like everybody else, they work to a certain safety rule, which is not what it used to be 25 or 30 years ago. The safety rule used to be rather simpler. The clearing banks or commercial banks—the "big five"—could then lend more money than they had in their tills. There is nothing very esoteric about that. The system is quite well understood, and it has been going on for a long time. But there was a limit to the extent to which they could lend more than they had in their tills, and that limit used to be expressed by the straightforward convention of a proportion of the banks' total deposits. It used to be that the total deposits could be roughly 10 times the cash which the banks had in their tills, but it is a convention of the City of London and of the British financial world that the word "cash" does not only mean notes or coins but also means their balances at the Bank of England. So in the old days cash in notes or coins plus their balances at the Bank of England could be multiplied by about 10, and that fixed the limit of the total deposits they were able to create by lending at interest what they had not got.
  However, in recent years there has been a change in the safety ratio. The safety ratio is no longer a straightforward relationship between, on the one hand, coins, notes and balances at the Bank of England, and, on the other hand, total
  1664
  deposits. It is now expressed in a fraction, and the numerator of that fraction is cash plus money market assets. An entirely new factor has come into the picture, money market assets. Cash plus money market assets over total deposits is now not supposed to exceed a fraction roughly of the order of 30 per cent.
  Now here we see where the sinister import of this Bill comes into play. The result of the demonetisation transaction by the time the Bank of England has carried out quite automatically the operations which it would have to carry out, calling in notes to demonetise them, is that the Midland Bank finds itself with less than it used to have by way of cash—less because, in the first place, it parted with notes and got in exchange for them a draft with which the Bank of England paid for the notes. To follow up, the consequential result was that it parted with the draft; and so the commercial bank finds itself in this happy position that it has less cash at the Bank of England but its total deposits remain unchanged. It is, therefore, able, without upsetting its safety ratio, to create more of the assets which are called money market assets. In other words, it is enabled to create more by way of bills, either commercial bills, or Treasury bills.
  Thus the commercial bank, to the extent that it has less notes, demonetised under this Bill, is able to create its own form of currency, which is loans, which are advantageous to itself and profitable to itself because the paper which it creates out of nothing bears interest. It has substituted £1 or 10s. notes, on which it had to pay interest to the Bank of England, with bills, commercial or Treasury, on which it charges interest, and it has done that without in any way upsetting its safety ratio, being the conventional fraction of which I spoke just now.
  That will be the effect of this Measure. The effect, in the first place, is that to the extent that there is demonetisation the total volume of circulating currency which was profitable to a nationalised institution has in fact been diminished, but that diminution can be, and no doubt would be, compensated exactly by the creation of a new form of currency, namely, bills, which would bear interest and be profitable to private concerns owned by absentee shareholders who live by owning and not by working.
  I cannot for the life of me understand why the party on this side of the Committee does not get "het up" by a Measure of this kind. One would suppose that the party on this side of the Committee is quite indifferent, when it comes to currency, whether the currency is created by a publicly-owned organisation, and is therefore profitable to the community, or whether the currency is created by a privately-owned organisation and is therefore profitable to some joint stock company which consists of absentee shareholders living without working, living by owing. I should have thought that the Labour Party would have been very keenly interested in that. However, I should be out of order if I proceeded to examine the possible reasons why the Labour Party is not "het up" about that.
  I propose, therefore, to turn to the second aspect—the rather more sinister aspect of the problem. The net result of the Bill, if Clause 1 be enacted without any Amendment, will be that the currency which takes the form of £1 and 10s. notes will be a smaller proportion of the total circulating currency. That is so because some of it will have been demonetised, leaving the way open for an equivalent amount of privately-created currency, bearing interest, to take its place.
  Let me explain the experience of this and other countries, particularly this country, when the notes in circulation are a substantially smaller proportion of the total currency, the total currency being bank deposits plus notes plus money market assets. When notes become a substantially smaller proportion of the total circulating currency, then we have a condition favourable to mass unemployment—what is generally known as and used to be called a slump but is now known as a recession.
  In this connection I think I ought to give the Committee the results of some of my researches on this subject. I will keep these results as short as I can, but this is a very relevant point. Averaging over 1921 to 1925, the Bank of England issue department had £399·6 million of notes in circulation against total deposits at the London clearing banks in that epoch of £1,718·4 million. In that period the percentage was 23·2 per cent. notes to total
  1666
  deposits. I take another period—1925–28. The percentage had not varied very much; it was 22·6 per cent. I take yet another period—1946–51; and it was still 22·6 per cent. The percentage is not very different now.
  The period 1929–33 was the depth of the inter-war depression—the world-wide depression which the party opposite managed to lay at the door of the Labour Government of those days but which was in fact world-wide. In that period the notes in circulation were £361·3 million against deposits of £1,820·9 million. The percentage had fallen, therefore, from 22 or 23 per cent. to 19·6 per cent.
  At a time when, as I have said, financial writers in all newspapers of all party political colours have, for the best part of 12 months, been speculating on the prospects of a United States depression in 1954; when even Ministers of the Crown and right hon. Gentlemen who used to be Ministers speak and write about those prospects; when we know that re-armament is tapering off; when we know that the activity of industry, as measured by what industry does to equip the Fighting Forces, is declining, I submit that it is a very sinister thing that Her Majesty's Government should come forward with a Bill of this kind proposing to place in the hands of the Treasury and the Bank of England the means of reducing substantially the proportion of the total currency which is represented by the currency notes in circulation when, as experience has shown, that is a condition of things favourable to depression.
  It is bad enough that the Conservative Party should look after their friends. I suppose the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer put their heads together, along with officials at the Treasury, to do what Fagin used to do in "Oliver Twist"; for he used to devise means whereby his friends could run little bits of business profitable to themselves. He organised what he called the "kinchin' lay," which consisted of waylaying children on errands for their parents and taking from the children the money which they clutched in their fingers.
  The Chairman: We should be discussing the Amendment.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Smith: I can only suppose that the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer spend their time devising methods whereby they can enable their friends—thejoint stock companies dealing in finance—to create currency which at the moment is created by the publicly-owned Bank of England. If I describe this Bill as a sort of "kinchin' lay," I am not far wrong; it is something like that. Here the Government are taking advantage of the lack of interest among most people in these matters—a lack of interest born of their complexity. I have quoted in the House before—and it is a quotation worth repeating—the words of the founder of the dynasty of Rothschild, who wrote, at the end of the 18th Century:
  "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws."
  The Government are taking good care, during the brief period for which they are destined to occupy those benches, to take as much business as they can away from the publicly-owned finance institution, the Bank of England, and hand it over to their friends. They are doing it by a camouflaged method, a method which looks so innocent; for this Bill is said to be for the calling in and demonetising of £1 and 10s. notes. I move my Amendment because if it were incorporated in the Clause it would take out of their hands—
  Mr. A. C. M. Spearman: Could the hon. Gentleman give any estimate of how much gain he thinks there would be for the private banks?
  Mr. Smith: Yes. The gain would be firstly what the private banks pay the Bank of England for notes. That is measured in the profit of the note issue, which is dealt with statutorily in the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928. That Act laid down that the profits of the note issue should not accrue to the then privately-owned Bank of England but should accrue to the Treasury. There are, therefore, profits in the Bank of England note issue, and there are certainly further profits for commercial banks in lending money which they have not got, in making an entry in their books crediting a borrower with the amount of the loan and proceeding to
  1668
  charge him interest on it. I wish I could lend money I have not got, but they will not let me do it, and if I tried to do it I should be prosecuted either as a forger or as a coiner—I do not know which, but I should certainly be prosecuted. This is a very profitable business for the people concerned.
  I submit that the Committee should accept my Amendment. What have the Government to worry about? If what I am saying is untrue, they can accept the Amendment. If what I am saying is true, then my party, the Labour Party, ought to rise up in their wrath and denounce this preposterous Bill.
  Mr. Bence: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) and I do so with much trepidation. I am very thankful, Sir Charles, that you listened attentively to my hon. Friend's thesis, because I feel sure that you must have a complete understanding of it and that if I keep my eye on you, you will immediately restrain me if my speech tends to get out of order.
  I started my apprenticeship as an engineer, and if engineers discover that things are missing they always know where to look for them. During my apprenticeship, all my seniors in the engineering industry and my employers, too, seemed to have an awful lot of money, but when I completed my apprenticeship and went out into the industry to stand on my own feet, I discovered that nobody had any money. I always wondered where it had gone. I found no one who had burnt it, and robberies had not been on the increase. My employers, I discovered, were becoming increasingly indebted to the banks. Everybody seemed to have begun to lose his money. Where had all the notes gone? When I was an apprentice some of the senior men were getting 21 £1 notes every week. When I finished my apprenticeship, we were lucky to get three £1 notes every week. Since I could find no one else who was getting them, who had them? I asked my hon. Friend about this—
  The Chairman: This Amendment is concerned only with diminishing the holding of the Bank of England and not an individual's holding.
  Mr. Bence: This demonetisation, which my hon. Friend has mentioned, has given me the clue. Here is the Bank of England taking powers unto itself to take our notes, which we have managed to collect, and to demonetise them. It seems to me that that may have been done before, and that is where the notes went. I agree with my hon. Friend that if the Government are giving the Bank of England power to destroy these notes, some of us are going to be very short of them. I do not want again to go through what I went through between the wars.
  The banks are going to find themselves terribly short of notes if the Bank of England starts calling them in and demonetising them without giving new ones in their place. If the banks are short of ready notes to pay over the counter, they will have to start calling in their bank credits given by way of overdrafts. I know something about that. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend that this is a very serious matter indeed. I am not a banker by profession, but I am sorry for the chairmen of the national banks if there is such a shortage of notes in the country that the ratio cannot be maintained unless a notice is sent to the local bank managements to call in their credit.
  If the Bank of England were to call in 1,000 million notes, there might be a run on the banks, and overdrafts would have to be called in, all the business men would be broke again, and we should be back where we were. I ask the Financial Secretary to give us an assurance that there will not be a repetition of the mysterious disappearance of notes which occurred between 1919 and 1922 by means of some mechanism in the banks. I do not understand what it was, although I can understand the most intricate mechanism of machinery. This is something beyond my experience. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will help me to get rid of the fears that I have that the demonetisation of these notes may lead once again to the mysterious disappearance of notes which occurred when I was a youth.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I can reassure the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) at once that neither this Clause nor the powers which, as I shall
  1670
  explain, it replaces can have the exciting but somewhat alarming consequences which he forecast. He may recall, if he was in the Committee when we were dealing with the last Amendment, that I pointed out then that notes which were to be called in could be taken to the Bank of England and legal tender could be obtained for them.
  Mr. Bence: I appreciate that, but that did not happen at the time of which I was speaking. They disappeared. It was not a question of handing in notes and getting money for them; the notes had gone. What happened to them?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is rather a difficult speculation and a most interesting one which I do not think you, Sir Charles, would permit me to follow up. This Bill deals with recall and demonetisation and not with the disappearance of notes.
  I suppose that all of us who speak frequently in the House have certain tricks of speech which hon. Members notice. I find that in the speeches of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) the word "sinister" appears in almost every third sentence he utters. His speech this evening was full of drawing "sinister"—to use his own phrase—implications from what is very largely a technical provision.
  It may be that, in the first place, the hon. Member did not perhaps fully appreciate that there is nothing new in the substance of this matter. He referred, no doubt by a slip of the tongue, to this provision providing for the first time for the recall of £1 and 10s. notes. I am quite certain that the hon. Member, with his considerable experience of these matters, knows that power has existed for the calling in of £1 and 10s. notes since the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928, and so far as notes of higher value are concerned, the power has existed since late in the war, in respect of £5 notes, under Defence Regulation 7AB. Therefore, the effect broadly of Clause 1 (5), which the hon. Member's Amendment seeks to amend, is to put this pre-existing power on the same basis. That is the basis of this Clause, and it enables us, as he will see if he looks at the later stages of the Bill, among other things, to get rid of two Defence (Finance) Regulations.

  1671
  Therefore, we are not, as one might think when listening to the hon. Member, sailing in uncharted and perhaps sinister seas. We are simply providing that pre-existing powers of recall shall be put into one Clause. If this power of recall can raise such sinister implications as the hon. Member seems to think, it seems remarkable that there have been no proceedings even in respect of £1 and 10s. notes during the 25 years since 1928 by which the hon. Member could have succeeded in both demonstrating their danger and securing their repeal.
  The provision, of course, has none of the economic significance which the hon. Member sought to read into it. I may perhaps comment on the terms of his Amendment. It provides that
  "…payment to a clearing bank for any notes called in from that bank under this subsection shall not have the consequential effect of diminishing the clearing bank's holding of cash at the Bank of England."
  To try to legislate against consequential effects is reminiscent of the legislative methods of His late Majesty King Canute because one cannot legislate against consequential events. But in point of fact this is merely putting into one subsection the necessary power of recall.
  I commented on an earlier Amendment on the occasion when the power of recall was used some years ago by the late administration for a very good reason. It may be that it will have to be exercised again. In any event, where the recall takes place from the clearing banks in the normal way, the notes called in will be replaced by notes of the new issue, because in the ordinary way of business these banks will require an adequate supply of notes for carrying on their business. Therefore, the economic effects in these circumstances are precisely nil.
  Nor would this particular provision be at all apt for effecting—if anyone wanted to effect them—the rather complicated series of economic transactions which the hon. Member for Nottingham, South appeared to contemplate. This is simply a provision for the regulation and control of the notes issued. It is a technical provision to enable some quite difficult administrative problems to be dealt with. That is its purpose, and even if it were possible to legislate against consequential effects,
  1672
  these are not consequential effects which will be consequential upon this particular Measure.
  Mr. Norman Smith: I cannot let the Financial Secretary get away with a reply like that, which assumes that the Committee does not know anything about this Bill, the Act of 1928 or history. The Financial Secretary himself does not understand what it is all about, nor is he familiar with the background of this.
  6.30 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary began by assuring my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) that even if the notes were demonetised—this is what he said; it will be on record in Hansard tomorrow—the holder of the notes could still exchange them. But who will be the owner of the notes under this legislation? It will be the Bank of England. It is the Bank of England that is given power to call the notes in and demonetise. Is the Financial Secretary trying to tell the Committee that the Bank of England will still be able to exchange the notes with itself?
  That part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply is utter nonsense. It is not the only nonsense in this reply. He denied the accuracy of what I said. I said that it has not been possible in the past to call in and demonetise £1 and 10s. notes. The Financial Secretary denied that. One of us must be right and the other wrong. He said that the power to demonetise notes has existed in the past and that it was conferred by the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member himself used the expression "call in." So did I. If he is now using that expression as synonymous with "demonetisation," perhaps he will explain it.
  Mr. Smith: The Financial Secretary—he will see it in HANSARD tomorrow morning—said that the power to demonetise had always existed in the case of £1 and 10s. notes.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not going to be misrepresented. I used the expression "call in" quite carefully, and the hon. Member will find that in HANSARD.
  Mr. Smith: In that case, the right hon. Gentleman was answering an argument which I had not put up. My argument

  1673
  was based, not upon the calling in, but upon the demonetisation, and the Financial Secretary had the audacity to call in support of his very bad case the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928. He wanted the Committee to believe that the Bill marks no significant departure from that Act. If that is so, will he explain why the original Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill a year ago, which he has thought fit to alter at the end of 1953, as compared with the end of 1952, contained these words, which I quoted before but which have since been taken out:
  "The Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928, gives the Bank power to call in, but not to demonetize, £1 and 10s. notes."
  Those are the facts, and nothing that the Financial Secretary said answered my case in that respect. He wanted to bluff the Committee into supposing that the Bill makes no difference so far as concerns the demonetisation, as a result of which my hon. Friend the former journeyman engineer could not get work.
  The Financial Secretary went on to say—it sounds so clever coming from a lawyer, but it is such nonsense to ordinary plain men—that one cannot legislate against consequential effects, and he cited the late King Canute as evidence of that. He said that the economic effect of the exchanging of these bank notes would be precisely nil. But it is not an
  exchanging of notes. It is the destruction of notes, a power which did not exist under the 1928 Act but will exist under this Bill when it becomes an Act. It is the destruction of notes, as my hon. Friend the former engineer rightly pointed out, which constitutes the danger.
  The Financial Secretary adduced against me Canute. I adduce against him the Cunliffe Committee. The Cunliffe Committee decided on the deflation that began at the end of 1920, which put my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East and many others out of work. We could have legislated against those consequential effects. The slump of 1920–21 was the direct outcome of deflation. I do not have to prove that. It was in the report of the Macmillan Committee on Finance and Industry, which was appointed in 1930 and reported in 1931. It is all there in that Committee's report. Do we have to go over that again?
  I take this opportunity of protesting against the levity and inaccuracy which the Financial Secretary displayed and the apparent contempt with which he chooses to treat the Committee. This is a serious subject, and he is not going to get away on that sort of thing.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 11; Noes, 165.

  Division No. 22.]

  AYES

  [6.35 p.m.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Foot, M. M.

  Orbach, M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Keenan, W.

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Mr. Norman Smith and Mr. Bench

  Kerr, H. W.

  Viant, S. P.

  NOES

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

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Arbuthnot, John

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

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

  Campbell, Sir David

  Ford, Mrs, Patricia

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Carr, Robert

  Foster, John

  Banks, Col. C.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

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

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Cole, Norman

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Colegate, W. A.

  George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

  Bishop, F. P.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Glover, D.

  Black, C. W.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Bossom, Sir A. C.

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

  Gower, H. R.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Crouch, R. F.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Braine, B. R.

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Darling Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hare, Hon J. H.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Hay, John

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

  Duthie, W. S.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Bullard, D. G.

  Fell, A.

  Heath, Edward

  Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Neave, Airey

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Speir, R. M.

  Holt, A. F.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Hope, Lord John

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Odey, G. W.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

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

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Osborne, C.

  Summers, G. S.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Page, R. G.

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

  Jennings, Sir Roland

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

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

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Kaberry, D.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Turner, H. F. L.

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

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

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

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Vosper, D. F.

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

  Redmayne, M.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  McAdden, S. J.

  Robertson, Sir David

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Russell, R. S.

  Wills, G.

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Sholefield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Scott, R. Donald

  Wood, Hon. R.

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

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Major Conant and Mr. Richard Thompson.

  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2.—(AMOUNT OF BANK OB ENGLAND NOTE ISSUE.)
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out "either," and to insert "the Commons."
  This Amendment, which I hope the Financial Secretary will be prepared to accept, raises a substantial issue. It seeks to take away the power which the Bill at present gives to the Upper House to veto an increase in the fiduciary issue at the end of two years. We say that it is entirely wrong to give to an unrepresentative House this power over the whole economic policy of the Government. That is, in effect, what the Bill does.
  Clause 2 (8), by virtue of the words
  "…either House of Parliament"
  enables the Upper House—this I think is not in dispute—to say "No" when a Government with a majority in this House has decided to extend the period of the increase in the fiduciary issue beyond two years.
  It is perfectly true, as we agreed on Second Reading, that an increase in the note issue nowadays is not ordinarily the cause of an expansion in economic activity, or of inflation in certain circumstances. But it is equally true that the
  expansion very often cannot take place without an increase in the note issue also following it. In a similar way, no doubt, the petrol in a motor vehicle is normally the cause of the engine running. But unless there is also some oil the engine will soon seize up and a crisis will occur.
  I thought the Financial Secretary was a little inaccurate when he fell, as he sometimes does, into rather vague language on the Second Reading and said:
  "Today it is fairly generally realised that the size of the fiduciary issue has very little to do with the general broad questions of inflation or deflation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 1328.]
  It is true to say it is not the cause, but I do not think it is true to say that it has very little to do with it. Perhaps I may take the opportunity at this point to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. He became a Privy Councillor during the Recess, which I am sure is a just reward for having, with great patience, defended so many indefensible actions of the Government in the last two years.
  The situation which we envisage is of this kind. Supposing there were a Labour Government with a majority in this House, which came to power at a time when there was considerable unemployment caused by the actions of a Government of the party opposite. That is a

  1677
  situation which might well occur, Sir Charles, though I do not expect you to agree with that, because we do not expect you to have an opinion on these matters. But that is the situation that might occur, and, indeed, it might occur during the course of the present year.
  In that situation the new Government, in order to reduce unemployment, would, if they were well advised, start on an expansionary policy and initiate an expansion of activity generally. Unemployment, one would hope, would go down. But at that point, under the Bill as it stands, it would be perfectly possible for another place to exercise a veto by praying against an Order which would be necessary to continue an increase of the note issue already in existence. That is what we are objecting to in this Amendment.
  It is all the more fantastic to give this kind of power to the Upper House, because financial and economic policy has always been the special prerogative of the Commons. Indeed, this House ought to be a vigilant guardian of those privileges and prerogatives. For that was the power of this House which was established against the Sovereign and the other place as long ago as the 17th Century and was reaffirmed against the Upper House in the constitutional struggles from 1909 to 1911. It seems to some of us, therefore, that this provision is contrary to the general doctrine that this House shall have sovereign power over financial and economic issues. To quote Erskine May at the beginning of page 39:
  "The most important power vested in any branch of the legislature is the right of imposing taxes upon the people and of voting money for the exigencies of the public service. The exercise of this right by the Commons is practically a law for the annual meeting of Parliament…and it may also be said to give to the Commons the chief authority in the state."
  It may be that the Financial Secretary will say that all this relates strictly to Revenue and Supply and not, in the letter—though perhaps he might admit it in the spirit—to the note issue and the matters covered by this Bill. It is the fact, however, and relevant to this argument, that the profit on the fiduciary issue under the 1928 Act is revenue of the Exchequer. I am sure that the Financial Secretary would not question that. It is ordinary Budget revenue, and accrues to the Exchequer just like any other yield
  1678
  from taxation. Erskine May also says on page 780:
  "The modern practice in respect of the Commons' financial privileges is based upon the resolution of 1671—"
  You will recall, Sir Charles, that this was just before an unhappy period of Tory Government under James II, but I only mention that in passing. The resolution was as follows:
  "That in all aids given to the king by the Commons, the rate or tax ought not to be altered by the Lords."
  I do not think it could be denied, even speaking literally and strictly, that the revenue derived from the profit on the fiduciary issue is "aid" voted to the Sovereign by this House. Therefore, I think the case is strong, even if we take it in a literal and not a general sense.
  In attempting weakly to reply to this argument on the Second Reading, the Financial Secretary said something to the effect that, whatever the merits, this was done under the Defence Regulations, and it was also done in more or less the same way under the 1928 Act; under both those provisions the Upper House had the power to cancel an increase in the note issue. That seems to us to be no answer to the substantial point. First of all, as far as the Defence Regulations are concerned, they were purely temporary arrangements, in force during the war, when a great many of the normal constitutional controls over finance, and indeed some normal privileges of this House, were suspended. In those days we used to conduct expenditure by a Vote of Credit which cut across most of the normal financial arrangements. Therefore, now that we are legislating permanently, it is largely irrelevant what were the temporary provisions in force under the Defence Regulations.
  When the Financial Secretary quotes the 1928 Act—I am assuming for the moment that he is right in thinking that additional legislation would be required under that Act for an increase in the note issue—it is rather remarkable for him, as the great opponent of delegated legislation for so many years when he was in Opposition, to quote that Act—which required new legislation—as a defence for making this power available simply by Order under the Bill which he is now bringing before the House. It seems to me that he has all the zeal of a convert for delegated legislation.
  Our real objection to the Bill is that we are opposed in principle to the grant of power to a Tory majority in the Upper House to veto the economic policy of a Government having a majority in the Commons. It is no answer to say that this was done by a Tory Government in 1928 which introduced an Act of that kind. Obviously that does not meet our point or satisfy us in the least. It is perfectly true that a Tory House of Lords threw out the Finance Bill of 1909, but I do not think anyone would argue that as a reason for repealing the original Parliament Act today.
  I do not think that so far the Financial Secretary can impugn the argument. But he may fall back on saying that, although these powers are open to objection in principle, nevertheless this kind of situation would not arise nowadays; that the other place would never abuse their powers in the way I am suggesting. But that seems to me a rather frivolous and light-hearted attitude towards legislation. We should not put on to the Statute Book powers that will never be used. If we think they should not be used, we ought not to put them on the Statute Book, and we ought to be scrupulously vigilant in defending the privileges of this House in matters of economic and financial policy.
  We do not have to go back to 1909 or 1911 to find an occasion when the Upper House resisted a major Measure which had been passed by the Commons. It resisted effectively for a time the will of the electorate and this House in the case of the steel nationalisation Bill in the years 1949 and 1950; so we shall not be satisfied by a casual argument of that kind.
  On the assumption that the Financial Secretary will not accept our Amendment straight away, though I hope he will, and even if he thinks that no harm would be done by leaving the Bill as it stands, what objection can there be from his point of view in putting this power solely in the hands of this House? Even if the right hon. Gentleman takes a rather light-hearted view of the privileges of the House of Commons, why should he want to insist on granting this power to the Upper House?
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. But if he refuses, and since I can see no good
  1680
  ground for obstinately refusing to accept this arrangement, some people will draw the inevitable conclusion that the Government are seeking to resuscitate and reinforce the power of another place even in these economic, financial and money matters.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has put the case for this Amendment with great clarity and great force, but, nevertheless, there are two or three arguments which I wish to address to the Committee, particularly because the Financial Secretary ventured, during the Second Reading debate, to address strictures to me concerning the argument which I put forward on that occasion.
  What I think is most noticeable on rereading the speech made by the Financial Secretary on that occasion is the fact that he did not attempt to justify the merits of the present proposal at all. He merely sought to point out that there was no startling constitutional innovation in the contents of the present Bill. He reserved for himself until we came to the Committee stage the defence which I suppose he is going to put forward to these proposals on their merits.
  If I may underline the questions which my right hon. Friend has put to the Financial Secretary, I hope we shall now at last have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman to some of the question which I and other of my hon. Friends put to him during the Second Reading debate, and particularly to the following question. Is it seriously intended that the House of Lords should have the power, by a mere Resolution, to veto the will of the Government of the day and of this House with regard to an increase in the fiduciary issue?
  If it is not intended that the House of Lords should have that power, why, then, is it thought necessary or desirable to ask this House to give the other place that power? I still think, as I thought on Second Reading, that this is a matter of very serious constitutional importance. I am not particularly concerned with what the position was under the Act of 1928, which, after all, was an Act passed by a Conservative Government.

  1681
  We must remember that the constitutional relationship between the two Houses has undergone a considerable change since then. During the last few years, and particularly since the war, there have been some very important debates about the proper position of the House of Lords in our legislative arrangements. It is in the light of the present doctrine and the present well understood relationship between the two Houses that we must tonight seriously consider whether or not it is right, in 1954, to give the House of Lords power by a vote, passed perhaps capriciously in a small House, to wreck the whole economic and financial machinery of the Government. That is what we are being asked to do today.
  Since 1928, and, indeed, since 1945, there have been two significant changes in the relations between the two Houses. First, there was the change made by the Parliament Act, 1949, which considerably curtailed the powers of the other place. The second change—the results of which have, perhaps, been too little observed by constitutional lawyers, Members of this House and others—was the giving of increased powers to the Government of the day to deal with delegated legislation.
  Whether or not one is in favour of delegated legislation the fact remains that every Government today has much wider powers of delegated legislation than they had years ago. That is accepted in a great many quarters as being necessary in our present economic conditions provided, of course, that there are adequate Parliamentary safeguards. To a great extent, the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, codified and modernised the law of delegated legislation by making the same kind of procedure applicable to all Statutory Instruments, which was a useful and desirable thing to do.
  One of the things that was done under that Act—and in looking back at the debate which took place in 1945 it seems to me that it was, in a sense, done inadvisedly—was to give the House of Lords and this House equally parallel powers of veto on all matters of delegated legislation. I doubt whether that was a wise thing to do, because one reflects that one of the things we did by that Measure was to give the House of Lords a power of veto on financial.
  1682
  economic and all other matters, and in a sense, therefore, to restore to the House of Lords some of the powers which had been deliberately taken from it by the Parliament Act, 1911, and which were further diminished in 1949.
  I wonder whether the country was aware of what happened. As the law runs, the House of Lords has the technical power, by passing an appropriate Prayer, to annul any Statutory Instrument, regardless of its importance and regardless of the wishes of this House.
  The Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is going rather beyond the present Amendment in discussing the Statutory Instruments Act.
  Mr. Fletcher: With great respect, Sir Charles, I think that I am in order because Clause 2 (8) provides, in effect, that Treasury power to increase the fiduciary issue up to two years
  "shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
  The object of this Amendment is to take out, for the purposes of this Bill, the ordinary operation of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, and to curtail it. Therefore, if this Amendment is accepted—as I hope it will be, because it is a very serious Amendment—the effect will be, pro tanto, that of the modification of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946. With great respect, therefore, Sir Charles, I submit that I am in order in addressing these arguments on this occasion, because this Bill is in the nature of a money Bill and affects the finances of the country. It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to accept this Amendment. Statutory Instruments dealing with finance are in a different category from other Statutory Instruments falling under the Act.
  I hope that I am not wearying the Committee, but I was trying to explain the law as it stands with regard to Statutory Instruments. I was going on to say that another matter which seems to me of great significance is that, in fact, the House of Lords has never as yet ventured—indeed, I am tempted to say dared—to pass a Prayer to annul any Statutory Instrument of any kind.
  That is a matter which ought to be underlined because considerable time

  1683
  has now elapsed since we have had this experience of delegated legislation, and for over six years there was a Government in office which had not a majority in the other place; and, therefore, it would have been open to the other place, on various occasions, had it been so minded, to wreck or seriously interfere with the legislation and administrative programme of a Government to which it was hostile. That opportunity may occur again before very long.
  I believe, therefore, that there is a convention in the course of growing up the effect of which is that the House of Lords does not exercise its powers to veto Statutory Instruments. I would hope that we have reached a stage in our Parliamentary conventions similar to the convention which had grown up for about 150 years before the House of Lords threw out Mr. Lloyd George's Finance Bill of 1909 and produced the constitutional crisis of 1910 and 1911.
  Be that as it may, it does not seem to me good enough that we should rely on constitutional conventions because if a constitutional convention should be observed in the breach rather than the observance, as was the case in 1909, it leads to unfortunate constitutional crises which are better avoided if we can do so. Therefore, while I take the view that it is very unlikely and would certainly be quite unwarrantable for the House of Lords ever to attempt to exercise the power which this Clause of the Bill, as it stands, will confer upon it, I think it will be much better, in the interests of honesty, reality and common sense to exclude the possibility.
  If we were to do so we should not be doing more than restoring the de facto position, namely the kind of position as it was under the Parliament Act, 1911. After all, it is commonly accepted that the House of Lords has some very desirable functions to perform in our constitutional arrangements. It is also accepted that there should be a complete limitation on the powers of the other place to interfere with the exclusive right of this House to deal with what are broadly referred to as money Bills.
  That is the phrase intended in general parlance, though perhaps not in strict legal theory, to cover not merely Bills which impose taxation but also Bills and
  1684
  Statutory Instruments passed under Bills which affect the economy and financial arrangements of the realm. This Bill is quite clearly of that character. Therefore, it seems to me that the Bill as it stands without this Amendment will be a monstrosity and a contradiction of the constitutional arrangements about which we have had at least one major crisis and about which we do not want any more.
  It seems to me that the sensible, prudent and statesmanlike course for the Government to take today would be to assent to the arguments which have been addressed and to accept the Amendment because the limitation which we want to impose in the Bill is not on something which is required by the Government or intended to be acted upon. Or is it intended that it should be acted upon? That is what I want to know. Is it intended that the House of Lords should be given a real power or not, because if that is so it is a really dangerous matter?
  What the Government are asking for is either monstrously dangerous or totally unnecessary. I wish the Financial Secretary to answer. I hope that we shall not pass on from this matter until we have had a thoroughly searching inquiry into what are the intentions of the Government behind this proposal.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Bence: I wish to support what has been said and I hope that my hon. Friends will divide on this Amendment if the Financial Secretary is not prepared to accept it. It is astonishing that in 1954 legislation can be enacted by this House, particularly, as my hon. Friend has said, on financial matters, that can have very serious effect upon the economy and can overthrow action taken by this House to expand or support the economy of the country. That is very dangerous indeed, and a retrogressive step.
  That is particularly so when one remembers that in the other place, which has, I think, 700 Members, the quorum happens to be three, one of whom may be the Lord Chancellor, the second of whom may be a new Member being introduced and the third an old Member, perhaps in his 90th year—the new Member being perhaps in his 91st year; and those three noble gentlemen will be able to frustrate the declared policy of the House of Commons.

  1685
  I hope that the Financial Secretary will appreciate that it will cause great disturbance among the mass of the people when they know that three noble Lords can frustrate the declared policy of the elected representatives of the people, especially when we have been moving forward, up to two years ago, at a rapid pace. We may now be moving backwards, unfortunately, as a result of the actions of the present Government. I beg the Financial Secretary to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was good enough to preface his observations with an agreeable personal reference to what he described as my reward for defending indefensible causes. If that be so, I must say that the one which fell to him some years ago would appear, on that reasoning, to have been given for defending indefensible causes far longer than I have done.
  The right hon. Gentleman correctly stated the effect of his Amendment. As the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) said, it has the effect of taking out of the normal operation of the Statutory Instruments Act, in its application to this matter, the power of another place to annul one of the Orders made under this Clause. That is perfectly accurate, and would be the effect of the Amendment.
  I do not quarrel very much with the degree of importance which the right hon. Gentleman attributed to the size of the fiduciary issue. I rather thought he was trying to have an unnecessary quarrel with me and that, perhaps subconsciously, he realised that we are really more or less of the same mind on this point.
  I come to the question, which, I agree, is one of some interest, which is posed by the Amendment. I would suggest that the right general line of approach is that this is, after all, a Bill dealing with currency and bank notes. Whatever our views may be upon the relative authority of this House and another place, we ought not to use this Bill as a vehicle for effecting alterations in their relative authority and position. If there is a case for alteration in the relationship of the two Houses, that is a high constitutional matter which I should
  1686
  have thought would have been more appropriately dealt with in some major constitutional Measure.
  I suggest that the right approach is that we should not seek to alter the relationship between the two Houses by any small sidewind such as this but that, if there be a case for its alteration in the broad sphere, it should be dealt with in the normal way. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would quarrel with that approach. Therefore, if one accepts that, we come to the question as to whether the Bill as it stands or the Bill as it would stand if the Amendment were put into it more correctly follows the general position and more correctly approaches the question of the existing relationship between the two Houses.
  Mr. Jay: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not assume that I am agreeing with his argument up to now. I attempted to argue not on the ground of the existing situation, but on the real constitutional merits of the case.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In that case I take the argument further. Whatever one may think of the general relationship between the two Houses, it is not the right way to tackle it to take advantage of one Measure dealing with only a very small fraction of the field in order to alter that relationship. That is the view that I would suggest is the right one. I certainly would not seek to attribute it to the right hon. Gentleman, but that is the spirit in which I approach the matter. During the period since the Second Reading, and in view of the speeches made then, I have made a careful investigation into the subject. As a result I approach this matter in that spirit.
  I was most surprised when the right hon. Gentleman, as I understood him, apparently referred to the existing position as being that this House—and I quote his words—has sovereign power over economic and financial business. I am surprised to hear a former Fellow of All Souls use the word "sovereign" in so loose a sense. Even pardoning that lapse, it is not an accurate statement of the existing position. The best possible answer to the right hon. Gentleman was given by his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, who speaks with great authority on these subjects. He pointed

  1687
  out that the whole of the economic controls operated, in great degree by the Labour Government and in much less degree by the present Government, under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) and the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) legislation on the basis that the Orders made under the authority of that legislation are subject to annulment in either House.
  That is the existing position. I do not seek to make a party point of it, but it is an existing position brought into being by legislation for which righthon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible. That is the fact. I propose to remind the Committee of other examples. We can start from the fact that that great body of authority in matters financial and economic which is embodied in the Supplies and Services and Emergency Laws legislation gave to another place equal powers with this House, and that that was enacted under the Labour Administration.
  That being so, it is nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the existing position is that this House has, as he put it, sovereign power over economic and financial business. The right hon. Gentleman is at liberty to take the view that it ought to be; that is another matter which we can discuss on another occasion. That as a statement of the existing position simply does not stand up to analysis.
  I carry the point a little further. I do not want to inflict on the Committee again the exact precedence of this subject of currency and bank notes. I need only remind hon. Members that under the Act of 1928, so far as one can judge, this matter of extending after two years the limit of fiduciary issue depended upon legislation in which another place would take part, and the position was the same under the Defence (Finance) Regulations. Therefore, we start on the basis that on this topic of the control of the size of the fiduciary issue another place has had powers broadly equal to this House, subject only to the qualification of the Parliament Act.
  But the matter does not by any manner of means stop there. I have collected a number of Measures in which power to make delegated legislation was allowed
  1688
  with control given to both Houses. The one point in common that all those Measures have is that they were all Measures enacted under the Labour Administration. Therefore, presumably, they can be free from any suspicion that they were tainted with some arrière-pensée, a desire, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to resuscitate another place.
  Grants under Section 2 of the Inshore Fishing Act, 1945, are effected by Regulations subject to annulment in another place. Orders varying the rates of contribution under the National Insurance Act, 1946, are in the same category, as was the Order approving the supplementary scheme under Section 27. In another Act close to this Bill, the Coinage Act, 1946—and, after all, coinage is very close to currency—the Regulations making consequential modifications of enactments are subject to annulment in another place. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall the Exchange Control Act, 1947, and Orders restricting transactions in securities—that is as economic or financial as one could find—which were subject to annulment in another place.
  Orders imposing levies on industry under Section9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, are in exactly the same position, as are Regulations for grants under the Fire Services Act, 1947. Regulations relating to transport stock and securities are in the same category in the Measure of which hon. Gentlemen opposite are so proud, the Transport Act, 1947. And, lest other right hon. Gentlemen responsible for other nationalisation Measures feel that they have been left out, the position is the same under the Electricity Act, 1947, which was followed a year later by the Gas Act. 1948. If we want another financial and economic matter over which we are told that this House has sovereign power, there is the Savings Bank Act, 1949. Under Section 3, the Order limiting deposits of the trustee savings banks and the provision under Section 9 for regulating the rate of interest paid, is subject to annulment by either House of Parliament.
  This goes on until one comes to the Iron and Steel Act, 1949, which is another of the nationalisation statutes. The Regulations relating to the iron and steel stock are in the same category. If the right hon. Gentleman wants another—a

  1689
  Measure which by its very name comes within the category—there is the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1950, Section 3. Therefore, it is simply not in accordance with the facts to suggest that the existing position is that another place is so completely kept out of financial and economic matters as not to have power to annul Statutory Instruments.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Jay: Would the Financial Secretary not agree that those Measures do not include or affect actual Budget revenue, as this does in the matter of profit on the fiduciary issue?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman describes as Budget revenue, but if one alters the rate of contributions under the National Insurance Act one imposes a charge on a large number of one's fellow-countrymen and one makes a relief or a charge on the Budget, as the case may be.
  Mr. Jay: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that the contributions are paid to the Insurance Fund and not to the Exchequer.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Exchequer, from time to time, has to make contributions to the Insurance Fund. This suggestion that we are altering the existing position just will not wash. The hon. Member for Islington, East who, with respect, knows far more about these matters than does the right hon. Gentleman, gave the complete case away on the subject of the existing position when he invited the attention of the Committee to the position under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1946.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: I do not know whether the Financial Secretary is trying to drive a wedge between my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and myself, but they have never dared to use any of their powers.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not like reference to another place which uses pejorative words such as "they," but I understand that the noble Lords have not seen fit to exercise these powers for some time. That may be a somewhat double-edged argument from the point of view of the hon. Members. It should still any
  1690
  fears which he may have that the following of what has been, without disaster, the normal practice for a great many years will suddenly land us, for some odd and inexplicable reasons, in difficulties now. I am grateful to him for his assistance. He knows a great deal about the subject and has done most valuable work on the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.
  We come, therefore, to the position that unless we want to use currency and bank notes legislation as a means, by a side wind, to alter the relations between the two Houses, we are bound to reject this Amendment. On this Bill I am not concerned to argue the high constitutional case between the two Houses. Apart from anything else, I should require a good deal of time, as no doubt would hon. and right hon. Members opposite in reply. I suggest that that general issue does not arise. We are doing nothing by this Bill which alters the relationship between the two Houses or which would prevent another place, if it saw fit to act in such a manner, no doubt causing considerable inconvenience.
  Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the plain question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East which so far he has evaded? Does he or does he not contemplate that the other place might use the powers given to them?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I was coming to that point, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will admit that my argument is clearer and more comprehensible in the order which I have selected than it would be if I adopted the order which he kindly suggests to me.
  I was saying that another place has already, and very largely under powers which flow from Measures passed by hon. Members opposite, the power if they so wish to act in such a way as to cause very serious consequences indeed. After all, the other place could annul practically all the Orders affecting all the major economic controls. That power hon. Members opposite thought it quite right to introduce, because they knew perfectly that it would be exercised responsibly. I see no reason why we should not show similar confidence in the sense of responsibility of another place to that which was shown by hon. Members opposite.

  1691
  The emphasis throughout this debate has been on the actual act of annulment. It is perfectly clear that if either another place or this House, in fact, annulled an Order of this kind the consequences might be highly inconvenient. For that very reason, we are entitled to assume that this House and another place would act responsibly. But the purpose of this provision is not merely to give power to annul but also power to discuss, and that is somewhat relevant to this matter.
  The right hon. Member fox Battersea, North spoke very good sense when he pointed out that to a considerable extent an increase in the size of the fiduciary issue was the symptom rather than the cause of inflation. Consequently, an Order of this kind may give a considerable opportunity for debate in either House, not with the intention of solemnly reducing the size of the fiduciary issue by an arbitrary act, but to allow analysis of the policy of the Government. That would be most conveniently effected on this Order.
  What we are doing is fully in accordance with the relationship of the two Houses, as it has been laid down and continued under a variety of Governments for a number of recent years. Once one accepts that, it would be wholly wrong for us to use this Measure to effect a change, however small, by means so devious.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Whether or no the Financial Secretary was elected to the Privy Council for defending indefensible causes, he has lost no zeal in presenting argument. He has made a case to show that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and other Members of the late Government possibly ought not to have been as zealous in granting the House of Lords powers in this direction. I was not a Member of the late Government, but I would say that whilst the late Government might have been suspected of many sinister designs which the Financial Secretary attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) rather earlier, I do not think that anyone has ever thought that the Labour Government wished to increase the powers of the House of Lords.
  The Financial Secretary says that the provision in this Bill is in accordance
  1692
  with a good deal of practice, but he did not show any strong arguments why that practice should be continued. It has been said already that this matter raises high constitutional issues. It has been a firm constitutional principle for 300 years that on the whole their Lordships should not be trusted with money matters. That has not been observed continuously. They rejected Mr. Gladstone's Paper Duty Bill of 1861, and there was the Finance Bill of 1909.
  But the whole relationship between the Houses on matters of finance is not as close today under the Parliament Act, 1911, as is sometimes thought. Under that Act it is laid down that, as opposed to ordinary legislation, in the case of Money Bills their Lordships can only hold up those Bills for 28 days. But that does not by any means include all Money Bills, even defining Money Bills in the strict sense of Bills which raise taxation. Since 1911 rather less than half of the Finance Bills have received Mr. Speaker's certificate as being Money Bills.
  It is obviously the fact that since their Lordships burned their fingers so much in 1909, it is pretty well outside the bounds of possibility that their Lordships should now reject a Budget or a Finance Bill. But that depends still upon convention and not upon law in the case of a great number of Finance Bills and probably of the more controversial ones. This Bill would not be protected by Mr. Speaker's certificate nor by the provisions of the 1911 Act. Indeed, after the Act of 1911 Mr. Speaker Lowther said that he would not have given his certificate if he had been called upon to do so under the operation of the Finance Act of 1909, which was followed by two years of constitutional crisis.
  It is extremely important to maintain in all ways, and for it to go out that this House is intent on maintaining always, that money matters in a broad sense and not merely Bills which attract Mr. Speaker's certificate are the exclusive concern of this House and should not be discussed, let alone voted upon, by their Lordships' House. It is difficult to imagine a Bill which in a broad sense would foe more of a Money Bill than this one. It is unfortunate that in such a Bill, in 1954, a Conservative Government should be doing this—for, after all, it has been a Conservative House of Lords egged on by Conservative Governments

  1693
  which has created trouble in the past—and that this Government should put into a Bill a provision which, perhaps more in form than in substance, gives the House of Lords specific power to annul an order dealing with the size of the fiduciary issue.
  In this case we are not asking the right hon. Gentleman to put something into the Bill specifically to cut down the powers of the House of Lords, but we are asking him not to leave in the Bill something which specifically invites the House of Lords to annul a regulation dealing with a matter as directly financial as the size of the fiduciary issue and the amount of currency to be circulated in the country. I think it is unfortunate that such a Bill should leave this House at present. It is unfortunate that such a Bill should go up as perhaps one of the last Bills to come from this Government under the leadership of the present Prime Minister. One does not wish to lend currency to rumours when an hon. Member so well informed and discreet
  as the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) is sitting opposite, but one cannot but pay great attention to what an hon. Member like the hon. Member for Louth has to say on these matters.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): That matter does not arise on this Amendment.
  Mr. Jenkins: I was, Sir Rhys, within two or three sentences of concluding. I was saying that, having regard to what the hon. Member felt it necessary to say last weekend, and having regard to what the Prime Minister has said and done about the House of Lords in the past, nothing could be more unfortunate than that one of the last Bills to go from this House under his Premiership should invite the House of Lords to take more powers.
  Question put, "That 'either' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 181; Noes. 139.

  Division No. 23.]

  AYES

  [7.45 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

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

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

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

  Fell, A

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Fisher, Nigel

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

  Banks, Col. C.

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Ford, Mrs. Patricia

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Baxter, A. B.

  Foster, John

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

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

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

  MacLeod, John (Rose and Cromarty)

  Birch, Nigel

  Glover, D.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Black, C. W.

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Bossom, Sir A. C.

  Gower, H. R.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Marples, A. E.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

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

  Braine, B. R.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Mellor, Sir John

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Hare, Hon. J. H.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

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

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Neave, Airey

  Bullard, D. G.

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Nicholls, Harmer

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Hay, John

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Heath, Edward

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Carr, Robert

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

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

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

  Holt, A. F.

  Osborne, C.

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Hope, Lord John

  Page, R. G.

  Cole, Norman

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Colegate, W. A.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Pitman, I. J.

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

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Dol. O. E.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Crouch, R. F.

  Kaberry, D.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Kerr, H. W.

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Redmayne, M.

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Wade, D. W.

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Summers, G. S.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Russell, R. S.

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Scholefield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Scott, R. Donald

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

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Shepherd, William

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Wills, G.

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

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

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

  York, C.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Turner, H. F. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Mr. Studholme and Mr. Allan.

  Speir, R. M.

  NOES

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

  Popplewell, E.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hastings, S.

  Porter, G.

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Bartley, P.

  Holman, P.

  Rankin, John

  Bence, C. R.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Rhodes, H.

  Benson, G.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Richards, R.

  Bing, G. H. C

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Blackburn, F.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Ross, William

  Blyton, W. R.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Boardman, H.

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

  Short, E. W.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Brock, Dryden (Halifax)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Keenan, W.

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

  Burke, W. A.

  Kenyon, C.

  Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Champion, A. J.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Snow, J. W.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Steele, T.

  Clunie, J.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Collick, P. H.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Logan, D. G.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  McLeavy, F.

  Thornton, E.

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Timmons, J.

  Finch, H. J.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Wallace, H. W.

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Warbey, W. N.

  Foot, M. M.

  Mason, Roy

  Watkins, T. E.

  Forman, J. C.

  Messer, Sir F.

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

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Morley, R.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Glanville, James

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  West, D. G.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Mort, D. L.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Grey, C. F.

  Moyle, A.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Murray, J. D.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Orbach, M.

  Wigg, George

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Oswald, T.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Hannan, W.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Pearson, A.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Peart, T. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Royle and Mr. Holmes.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, to leave out "A minute of the Treasury," and to insert "An order."
  The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment were discussed with the next Amendment on the Order Paper, in line 19, leave out "laid before Parliament," and insert "a Statutory Instrument and shall be subject to
  annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of the Commons House of Parliament."
  Mr. E. Fletcher: The last Amendment dealt with the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. This Amendment deals with the relationship between Government and Parliament. It is, therefore, very convenient that we should have present in the Chamber both the Prime Minister and

  1697
  the hon. Member for Louth(Mr. Osborne). The relationship between the Government of the day and the House of Commons is a matter about which, as the Prime Minister knows, there has been a certain amount of speculation as the result of the speech made by the hon. Member for Louth two or three days ago, and on which we shall no doubt now be receiving some authoritative enlightenment.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): Delusion.
  Mr. Fletcher: We shall all know how to interpret that oracular interjection.
  Mr. James Callaghan: The hon. Member for Louth is waiting to take over.
  Mr. Fletcher: This Amendment seeks to deprive the Treasury of the power to increase the fiduciary issue merely by making a minute. If the Treasury wish at any time, even temporarily, to increase the fiduciary issue it should do so, not by a mere minute over which the House of Commons has no control, but by Statutory Instrument laid before Parliament, upon which there could be a discussion and concerning which, if necessary, a negative Resolution could be moved.
  We heard nothing in the course of the Second Reading debate to justify the claim of the Government to take—or to retain, if the Government so prefer to regard it—the right to change the fiduciary issue by minute. The object of this Amendment, also, is to ask the Financial Secretary to explain why it is still necessary—granted it has been the case in the past—that the Treasury should by minute be able to increase the fiduciary issue.
  The Prime Minister would be the first to agree that it is always desirable, and particularly in these days, that there should be the most effective Parliamentary control over the Government of the day. Distinguished writers point out that in recent times the power of the Executive seems to be increasing at the expense of the House of Commons, and that it is an undesirable thing. It is always desirable that there should be adequate Parliamentary control over the actions of the Government and we do not approve of the tendency of the present Government to adopt this attitude towards the rest of the House of Commons. It would be
  1698
  simple for the Government to make a Statutory Instrument if they desire to change the fiduciary issue. Why should they claim the right to do so by minute?
  The matter is of particular importance in these days when, if we are to believe the hon. Member for Louth, the resignation of the Prime Minister is impending. Is not that an additional reason why the House of Commons should have adequate control? All hon. Members of this House have the greatest admiration and affection for the Prime Minister. I may say with respect that today he is universally beloved, and a great many of us read with the greatest misgivings, disquiet and doubt the news which the hon. Member for Louth allowed to break loose—
  Mr. Callaghan: Especially if the hon. Member for Louth takes over.
  Mr. Fletcher: —on the country and the world this week-end. Whether he did so with any justification at the moment we do not know. I think we are entitled to know. The Government are asking for this power to increase the fiduciary issue by minute and surely we are entitled to know the intentions of the Government and the Prime Minister. Can we be left in suspense like this?
  The Prime Minister: I am sorry I did not bring my hearing aid.
  Mr. Fletcher: Hon. Members on this side of the Committee are always anxious to do everything possible to study the personal convenience of the Prime Minister.
  8.0 p.m.
  I very much hope that the Financial Secretary will take the Amendment seriously. It is most desirable that the House of Commons should keep continuous watch over the amount of the fiduciary issue. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the Government of the day shall not be able to change the fiduciary issue without laying an Order which can be discussed in the House. It is particularly important at the present time that the House should have that control in view of the statement made at the week-end by the hon. Member for Louth about the intentions of the Prime Minister.
  I was saying that in view of the great affection for the Prime Minister we are disturbed—
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member's argument is very entertaining but, although it may not be tedious repetition, it is getting near it.
  Mr. Fletcher: I do not want to explain, Sir Rhys, why I felt that on this occasion a modest amount of repetition would be permissible.
  We are anxious that all Members of the Government shall have the opportunity to give any answer they can to the Amendment. I hope we shall now have an authoritative pronouncement from the Treasury Bench about whether there is any connection between the news which came from the hon. Member for Louth about the Prime Minister's intentions and the object of the Bill, which is to take away a very desirable measure of control of the House of Commons over the Government of the day.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I may disentangle that part of the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) which did not refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne)—a feat of some intellectual difficulty—I shall endeavour to deal with the points of substance that he made.
  The effect of the Amendment is to provide that the Treasury Minutes, by which are effected the variations from time to time in the permitted level of the fiduciary issue, should be turned into Statutory Instruments subject to the normal Statutory Instrument procedure.
  I feel I am entitled to claim that by this Measure in general we give a greater degree of Parliamentary control than has been the case up to date. Under the provision which we debated a few minutes ago affecting the maintenance of the fiduciary issue above the base level for two years, we gave a power to proceed by Statutory Instrument, whereas during the war and under the Defence Regulations there has been no direct Parliamentary control at all. To that extent we are entitled to claim that we have paid some attention to what the hon. Member for Islington, East said as to the need to make sure that Parliament is properly informed.
  But here we are not dealing at all with the provision for maintaining the fiduciary issue after two years at a higher level. We are concerned only with the individual variations, which, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Batter-
  1700
  sea, North (Mr. Jay) will well recall, have to be made at different times of the year to meet the increased demand for bank notes at the time of public holidays. I suggest that that purely administrative act, one which has to be performed fairly frequently, is not one for which Statutory Instrument procedure would be very convenient.
  I shall illustrate that by remanding the Committee what has happened in the last few weeks. Christmas is one of the occasions on which it is necessary to increase the fiduciary issue in order to provide sufficient notes for purchases during the Christmas shopping. It is equally the practice—it has been so for many years—to reduce the fiduciary issue again when the Christmas rush is over. On 2nd December, we made a Minute increasing the fiduciary issue to £1,625 million, and on 14th December to £1,675 million. We decreased it on 4th January to £1,625 million and decreased it again to £1,600 million on 12th January. I am in a position to take this opportunity to inform the House that, by a Treasury Minute made today, which will be subject to the normal procedure, the figure is being reduced to £1,575 million, which happens to be the figure in Clause 2 of the Bill.
  That is an indication of how inappropriate the Statutory Instruments procedure would be to this particular form of administration. There have been five changes since 2nd December, and the normal period of 40 days in which a Prayer can be moved against it has not yet expired in the case of the first. That is an indication of the fact that this is not delegated legislation in any real sense at all. It is a necessary adjustment by the Treasury of the size of the fiduciary issue to meet the varying need for bank notes at different times of the year.
  The confusion which would result from the Statutory Instrument procedure can be contemplated if one thinks of the Select Committee concerned having to deal, not merely with an Order such as would have been, made under this procedure today, but also with the four previous ones, all of which would still under the time limit be subject to Prayers. I think that indicates the nature of these proceedings and, therefore, the inappropriateness of the Statutory Instrument procedure.

  1701
  The practical point is that the House should be informed. The House is informed both by the making of a Minute and, in practice, as hon. Members who follow the matter will recall, almost always by a reply to a Question by my right hon. Friend. Therefore, the knowledge of what the size of the fiduciary issue is at any time is very freely available to hon. Members. That I think is right, but I think that is all that is necessary, and, therefore, although I have from time to time expressed a certain bias about this Statutory Instrument procedure, I really cannot, even with that bias, convince myself that it is applicable in this particular case.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: In view of the very courteous and cogent answer which the Financial Secretary has made to part of my speech, I do not propose that the Prime Minister should be inconvenienced by pressing this matter further on the Committee, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  [22nd January]
  Resolution reported,
  MINES AND QUARRIES
  That it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Minister of Fuel and Power under or by virtue of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision with respect to the management and control of mines and quarries and for securing the safety, health and welfare of persons employed thereat.

  BAKING INDUSTRY (HOURS OF WORK) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present session to restrict night work in the baking industry and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour and National Service in carrying the said Act into effect.

  SLAUGHTERHOUSES
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Allan.]
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. Percy Wells: The matter about which I want to detain the House is primarily a constituency question, but in view of the Government's proposals for fat stock marketing it may carry a much wider interest.
  About 72 years ago the Sittingbourne Co-operative Society built a slaughterhouse, which is the subject of this debate. It was intended at that time that it should cope with a weekly maximum kill of four to five beasts, 12 sheep and 35 pigs. This maximum was reached prior to 1939, and it was then the intention of the society to build an entirely new, re-sited slaughterhouse, but in 1939 the slaughterhouse was requisitioned by the Ministry of Food as part of the scheme for the centralisation of slaughtering.
  The area of supply included the whole of the Urban District of Sittingbourne, part of the Swale Rural District, and the whole of the Isle of Sheppey, with a total population of well over 50,000 people. From that day, all animals intended for human consumption in that area were slaughtered and dressed in this single, inadequate slaughterhouse. In 1941, certain additions were made. A part of the garage was taken in to increase the size of the slaughterhouse, and minor repairs to the floor and the drainage were executed subsequently. Even so, the condition of the slaughterhouse remains absolutely deplorable.
  The maximum daily kill at the present time has been agreed at 10 beasts and 50 smalls, or nearly twice the amount of the

  1703
  weekly kill that the slaughterhouse was built to cope with. The position of the slaughterhouse is about as bad as it possibly could be. Both the co-operative society and the local council have for many years past been anxious to close it and erect a new slaughterhouse in Sittingbourne, but all their representations to that effect have been turned down. I am not making a party political point, because the representations were made by the council and myself both to the Parliamentary Secretary who is now on the Government Front Bench and to his predecessors, and we were no more successful then than we have been since.
  The slaughterhouse is situated behind the Co-operative Society's main store on the east side attached to stables. On the west side there is a clothing factory, part of which, as a matter of fact, overlaps into the slaughterhouse itself. There are female and male employees in the clothing factory. The main offices of the society are within 33 feet of the slaughterhouse. On the south side is a large grocery department, and facing the entrance of the slaughterhouse is the entrance to the lavatory accommodation provided for female employees. Passing through the yard are not only the society's employees but members of the general public, and on "divi. Day" one can see queues of women and children lined up to receive payment of their dividends.
  The slaughterhouse consists of three compartments. There is a combined killing and hanging chamber, with a floor area of only 379 square feet; a hanging room for sheep, calves, pigs, offal, and the storage of skins and hides, together with condemned meat and offal, with a floor area of 592 square feet; and there is lairage accommodation of 661 square feet.
  The slaughtering procedure is as follows. A beast is led from the lairage into the killing chamber and there slaughtered. It is then dragged across the floor for bleeding, the head is taken off, and the hide partially removed. After that the animal is raised by tackle and dragged to another part of the killing chamber where the hide is completely removed and the internal organs extracted. The carcase is then split and
  1704
  each side is hung in the killing chamber until removal on the following day.
  Whilst those operations are taking place, another animal is being similarly treated. After six or seven beasts have been dealt with, the animals which have to enter the chamber brush up against the hanging sides of those previously slaughtered. As more and more animals are dressed the working space becomes more and more confined, and carcases are often soiled by animals brushing against them, by being kicked, or by the splashing up of the mess that is to be found in a slaughterhouse, when slaughtered beasts are in their death throes.
  The conditions are made more unsatisfactory because the gut board is stuck away in a comer of the building, and gut emptying results in the splashing of many of the sides already dealt with, sides adjacent to the gut board being thereby very much soiled. In the killing chamber also all stomachs are emptied down the drain and the stench is almost unbearable. Owing to the limited space, the sides of beef hang very close together, thus retarding the cooling process which is so essential, and that is undoubtedly responsible for some of the bone taint which sometimes results. All this certainly makes the job of the meat inspectors much more difficult than it otherwise would be. It is also possible that sound carcases may be contaminated by diseased ones.
  Conditions in the hanging chamber for smalls and offal, at the rear of the slaughtering chamber, are even worse. That chamber has a corrugated iron roof except where a short section is covered by wire netting. Ventilation is very unsatisfactory and artificial light is always necessary. In this room, in addition to the sound carcases, are stored condemned meat and offal, hides, calf and sheep skins and tripes. In the warm weather the place swarms with flies, making the contamination of sound meat a very real danger.
  It has been suggested that such contamination would be rendered harmless by the subsequent cooking, but this is not very reassuring. If it be so, what is the need for meat inspection at all? Meat inspection is carried out under the most difficult conditions. Fortunately, we have very conscientious meat

  1705
  inspectors, who do the job very well by working overtime and sometimes on Sundays, but they have protested for years against the conditions under which they work.
  In his Report for 1950, the Medical Officer of Health said:
  "Conditions at the slaughterhouse remain very unsatisfactory. The premises are much too small and badly laid out to cope with the number of animals dealt with. Further, owing to lack of proper hanging accommodation, meat inspection has to be carried out under exceptional difficulties."
  In this year 40·4 per cent. of cattle and 53·8 per cent. of cows were found to be diseased other than by tuberculosis; 12·4 per cent. of cattle and 38·5 per cent, of cows had tuberculosis.
  In his 1951 Report he said:
  "The premises are obsolete and the condition under which meat is prepared for human consumption is unsatisfactory. It will continue so until a modern abattoir is provided. It is regretted that in spite of the Council's efforts to this end it does not appear likely that such an abattoir will be provided for a considerable time."
  In his 1952 Report he said:
  "No alterations have yet been made in connection with improving the accommodation and the conditions at the slaughterhouse, and although 100 per cent. inspection of all animals presented for slaughter was maintained, throughout the year, the conditions under which such inspections are carried out are still very difficult. That such inspection is very necessary is evident from the fact that it was found necessary to condemn 24,591¼ lb. of meat and offal during the year."
  The anxiety expressed by the meat inspectors is certainly not groundless, as the following figures show. The 1952 Report—the last one available to me—says that 1,115 cattle, excluding cows, were inspected. Thirty-six per cent. of these were found to be diseased; 26· 9 per cent. were found to be affected with disease other than tuberculosis, and 9· 1 per cent. with tuberculosis, and either the whole or part of each of these carcases had to be destroyed. Of the 174 cows inspected that year, 66· 3 per cent, were found to be diseased; 47· 1 per cent, were diseased other than by tuberculosis and 21· 2 per cent, had tuberculosis. Of 2,975 sheep and lambs slaughtered, 11· 4 per cent. were found to be diseased, but none had tuberculosis. Of 963 pigs, 11· 9 per cent. had disease other than tuberculosis, and 1· 6 per cent. had tuberculosis. Of the total carcases examined, amounting
  1706
  to 5,431, disease was present in 958, and 24,591 lb. of meat and offal were condemned.
  This is a serious matter. I hope the Minister will not think that Kent farmers are sending their cattle to this slaughterhouse in order to save their lives, although I must admit that the incidence of disease found is very disquieting. That is a matter which I shall seek to raise subsequently. In the meantime, it is causing very much concern. The Sittingbourne and Milton Urban District Council has secured a site for a new market and slaughterhouse in Crown Quay Lane, adjacent to the railway, and this is an ideal spot both for a market and a slaughterhouse. It is considered that this is something that is long overdue. I hope that we shall be more successful on this occasion than we have been in the past in getting sanction to go forward with what is agreed to be a very necessary scheme. Sittingbourne fat stock market is the second largest fat stock market in the county of Kent, and the slaughterhouse is the only one in the district at this time.
  The need is urgent, and I hope I shall not be told to await the report of the inter-Departmental committee which, I know, is imminent, but that something will be done. I do not raise this matter in any party spirit. It is a matter of concern to thousands of my constituents. If they knew the conditions under which their meat is slaughtered and prepared, I am quite certain there would be a great increase in the number of vegetarians in that particular district. I hope that the Minister will give us an encouraging reply, because this really is a scandal, and it should have been dealt with much before this time.
  8.27 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: In fairness to the Parliamentary Secretary I should say at once that I have not had an opportunity of giving him advance notice of the points I wish to raise. I did not anticipate that we should have this amount of time for the debate. Indeed, I told my hon. Friend that I should not intervene in it, because I was anxious that he should have full opportunity to put the facts of his own case before the House.
  I am sure that the facts about our slaughterhouses, when they are revealed.

  1707
  will not cast any reflection upon or cause any criticism to be made of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure he has done everything possible that could be done, as we endeavoured to do what we could do at the time when we were in the Ministry. However, this is, as he will agree, I am sure, a very vexed problem that causes constant anxiety. I was very happy to note, on Monday, that at last we are soon to get at any rate the committee's interim report. I hope that once we get that report the Minister will be in a more effective position to compel his colleagues to allow him greater resources to tackle this very serious problem.
  I think everyone with any knowledge of the slaughterhouses of this country will agree that they are hopelessly inadequate, and that in one form or another we shall have to tackle this problem. I am not trying to make party points tonight. I am quite sure that when we have this inter-Departmental committee's report those of us who are conscious of the problem will be in a much more effective position to compel action.
  I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions that, I hope, he is in a position to answer, although I shall not complain if he is not. When I was at the Ministry of Food, in the late Government, we put forward a very limited scheme of seven new slaughterhouses, apart from the experimental slaughterhouses at Fare ham and Guildford. What progress has been made with that limited scheme? I am not trying to anticipate the report, but, in general terms, what experience has been gained from the experimental slaughterhouses? Has the experience gained been worth while?
  Further, because this is a special problem, what progress has been made regarding pigs? Last Session we discussed a Private Member's Bill dealing with pig slaughtering. My own impression is that that is a particular problem within the general problem. There was need for something to be done urgently about that. Has that particular problem of pigs been tackled?
  I mention my difficulty, in as much as this White Paper is now being printed. Nevertheless, I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to take the opportunity, if he can, of stating, without embarking on
  1708
  the political considerations, whether his view is still that the solution will lie along the path of moderate concentration. That was the view which we took at the time, and it would be reassuring to know that it remains the view held by the present Government. If there is a change of view, it is always an occasion for delay, whereas if we continue to take the same view, there will be a better opportunity of making more effective progress. Again, I am not seeking to anticipate the committee's report, but does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that whatever steps are taken—and I am not discussing those steps tonight—whatever form the control of slaughterhouses takes, there will have to be a national plan for slaughterhouses?
  Finally, I wish to raise a constituency point—the question of the Sunderland abattoir. Frankly, I believe it is not proper to embarrass the Government too much about these matters, because I concede that everything possible is being done by the Ministry, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is doing all he can to tackle this problem. As I have pleaded for a national plan, it is particularly difficult to stress a constituency case, but in Sunderland we are outside the category of being a purely constituency case because it was agreed, under the limited plan which I have mentioned, that Sunderland should have an abattoir. All I wish to do is to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the progress timetable for that slaughterhouse.
  This is a very good example of how difficult it is to carry out decisions. This was in a scheme under the late Government, but no beginning has yet been made with the building. I know something of the history of the case and I know that the present position is no reflection upon the Ministry, or upon anyone in particular. It arises from the difficulty of getting a proper site for an abattoir. Such difficulties take a long time to overcome, but we have overcome them and I understand that tenders have been sought. I am not sure whether I am right about that.
  It would be reassuring to us in Sunderland to know when the building is likely to be completed. We have waited for more than two years after the comforting decision that we were to have a new

  1709
  slaughterhouse. I know the Parliamentary Secretary will give an assurance that he will do all he can to speed up the Ministry of Works in constructing this abattoir, but if he can tell us when he expects it to be finished and to be brought into operation it will be a real comfort to the local authority. The Parliamentary Secretary will be shocked, as we were when we learned of them, to know the conditions which obtain.
  We were one of the fortunate authorities, with a decision in our favour for the provision of a new slaughterhouse. If the Parliamentary Secretary can give some general indication of when we are likely to see the opening of this abattoir, which has been an issue in Sunderland since well before the war, it would be a great comfort to those whose patient interest and determination will at last bear fruit.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. Denys Bullard: I regret that I was not in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) opened the debate. I heard the end of his speech and I gather that he was complaining about the conditions in a slaughterhouse in a particular area. All of us, I believe, have similar problems and I feel very strongly with him in what I heard of his speech.
  I do not think that we can lay the blame for the conditions which exist on any particular Government Department, especially the Ministry of Food, because they have been administering the slaughterhouses under a war-time policy. A great number were closed down during the war and this put a heavy burden on those that remained. The result is that a problem has arisen which did not arise when fewer animals were slaughtered in these places, some of which are quite old. This has certainly increased the problems of sanitation and all that goes with it. I hope that we shall soon be able to move away from the present conditions.
  My reason for intervening in the debate is to try to get information, if possible, of where we go from this point onwards. It seems to me that we are now about to embark in the coming year in a change-over in our slaughtering policy, and this seems an appropriate time to come to a definite decision as to what is
  1710
  to be done. I have had this problem put to me in my own constituency by butchers who are particularly concerned to know what they ought to be doing about their own places.
  I think that at the moment everyone is waiting for everyone else. There is a committee sitting and we hope to have a report shortly, but in the meantime those who would like to carry out improvements are inhibited from doing so because they are wondering what may be coming along later. They think that if they do something now their efforts may be superseded by what may follow. I hope that the slaughtering of cattle in the future will at least be done partly on the dead-weight basis as proposed by the National Farmers' Union.
  I think that there is an opportunity for that method to operate alongside other methods, but to work out that scheme, even if it is only a voluntary and partial scheme, there must be improved slaughterhouse facilities. That will require a lot of financing and thought if it is to be developed, and I hope the Government will give every possible encouragement to see that the scheme is enabled to work.
  Quite apart from that, it seems to me that such a scheme cannot possibly cover all the slaughtering done in this country. Therefore, I think that individual slaughterhouses—the smaller establishments—although they have their disadvantages will be required in the future, particularly in the small towns, although it is in the smaller towns that often the worst conditions exist.
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, as soon as he is able to do so. will give a lead to the people who really want to bring about improvements. Two or three years have passed since anything fundamental was done to change these places. I feel quite sure that there are many private owners of slaughterhouses who want to bring them up to date, and who would be prepared to spend money on them if they could be fairly clear as to what the future slaughterhouse policy is to be.
  Therefore, while I share the feeling of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that probably my hon. Friend will be limited in what he can say tonight, I hope that at the earliest opportunity he will make clear to these

  1711
  people what they can be getting on with, and what the broad outline of the future slaughterhouse policy is to be.
  Mr. Percy Morris: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the appalling description of the position at Sittingbourne is typical of the position throughout the country? Does he regard that as a commonplace example? If so, the Parliamentary Secretary has a tremendous indictment to answer. I am glad that I have already dined, because I could not possibly have had any enjoyment after listening to what has been said.
  Mr. Bullard: If I may be allowed to reply, I think that the hon. Gentleman did rather over paint the picture. I am sure that everyone who works in these places does his utmost to keep them in the best possible condition; but the places are not very good. I cannot praise highly some of the slaughterhouses which exist in my own constituency, but I cannot speak for the position throughout the country.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I wonder whether I may clutch the flying coat tails of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) to plead, quite unashamedly, a constituency problem of my own. I should not have intruded into my hon. Friend's Adjournment debate had we not had the time at our disposal that we have tonight. I think he will feel when I have finished what I have to say that, so far from weakening his case, I am putting a cutting edge on it, if that is necessary.
  We have, in Cardiff, a very real problem. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) that if he wants to spoil his meals for a good many days, he should come and look at our slaughterhouse in Cardiff.
  Mr. P. Morris: No, not Cardiff.
  Mr. Callaghan: As the Parliamentary Secretary may know, I have had correspondence with the Minister of Food on the question of our slaughterhouse in Cardiff. I have also had correspondence with the Minister of Health about what I regard as a menace to public health in the slaughterhouse at Adamsdown, and I have
  1712
  asked Questions of the Minister of Food since I had the opportunity of seeing the conditions that exist in the Adamsdown slaughterhouse last September.
  I went there on a warm September morning, and when I was there I saw swarms of flies feeding on rotting flesh within 30 yards of houses. When I said to the Minister of Health that this was a menace to public health, he replied that those responsible admitted that that was the case on the day I went there, but said that that was the only day on which it had happened. Who am I to say that it was not? I do not know, but it seems to be a remarkable coincidence that that should be the only occasion on which I happened to go, after I had been asked to go by the meat traders of Cardiff and by some of the local residents.
  I should like to bring it home to the Parliamentary Secretary that my interest is a purely constituency one, in the sense that the residents who are living around the slaughterhouse in Adamsdown feel that the present position is quite intolerable. I hope the House will forgive me if I use the time that we have at our disposal to explain why. There is a slaughterhouse in a heavily built-up industrial area in Cardiff, which is surrounded on three sides by houses and is bounded on the fourth by railway sidings. The houses are merely on the other side of the road. Adamsdown has some 10,000 people living in it as a ward, and I have often said in my speeches down there—they are getting tired of hearing me say it now—that in Adamsdown there are only three open spaces. One is occupied by the prison, the second by the cemetery, and the third by the slaughterhouse.
  There are 500 or 600 people living within yards of the slaughterhouse. Quite apart from the menace to public health, as I regard it, from these large fat flies feeding on the flesh lying in the open. [Laughter.] It may sound amusing, but I assure my hon. Friend that I found it quite revolting to see it. Quite apart from this, there is all the noise and disturbance of animals at night, in the lairage there waiting to be slaughtered, when people and young children are trying to sleep. Men who work on night shift are having to put up with all this inconvenience. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into the case most carefully.

  1713
  I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) that one authority seems to be waiting on another. The Cardiff City Corporation, whom I have approached on the matter, say, "We agree that the conditions under which men are working are really very bad." Some of the machinery, I am told, is upwards of 100 years old—indeed, it looks like it. Some of the men complained to me that it was dangerous to be working there. Certainly, they have few sanitary conveniences. There is a dirty little shed in which they have to eat their meals. There is cold water about 100 yards away in which they can wash the blood off their arms and hands. Instead of using that, they stay in the slaughterhouse, as I have seen, and wash off the blood under the hot taps where the animals are being slaughtered. I really thought it was one of the most nauseating spectacles I had come across.
  But the Cardiff Corporation says: "How can we spend money on it when we do not know what the future policy is to be?" I do not know enough about it to say to what extent the Ministry is responsible for this, but certainly the old rhyme seems to be apposite:
  "The Earl of Chatham, with his sword drawn,
  Stood waiting for Sir Richard Strachan.
  Sir Richard, longing to be at 'em,
  Stood waiting for the Earl of Chatham."
  That seems to be the case with the Cardiff Corporation and Charlie Hill. That was a figure of speech, but the Corporation and the Parliamentary Secretary seem to be waiting for each other.
  I am told that the Cardiff City Corporation has considered a new site, and it now proposes to recommend one. I was astonished to learn it is to be beside one of the newest housing estates on the edge of the city, in Rumney. It also happens to be near some railway siding, but it puts up the proposal to the Parliamentary Secretary and he decides it, I hope he will quash it straight away. I know that the Cardiff City Corporation do some odd things. Once they built a wall to separate one lot of residents from another lot. But there is no reason for them to repeat their folly in connection with the slaughterhouses.
  I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is a perfectly good site for the new Cardiff slaughterhouse if it is decided that there must be one. It is
  1714
  down at the docks, well away from the residential area. There is a big open space for it, known in the vernacular as "the Prairie," because it is a large open space with plenty of railway sidings, and with the docks close by. In this place the whole of this business could be carried on without any undue interference with the proper working of the meat trade and no interference with those who do their business there.
  I am much obliged to the House and to the Parliamentary Secretary for listening to me with such patience. I have been informed that present slaughterhouse inconveniences seriously distresses many local families. I saw the conditions for myself during the Recess, and the Parliamentary Secretary has received, within the last three weeks, a petition that was spontaneously organised by the people living immediately around the slaughterhouse. This is a very real problem from the point of view of those engaged in the trade and those who live around this place and who will be occasioned distress and disappointment unless something is done. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can do something to help us.
  8.49 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Crouch: I had no intention of intervening in this debate, but in view of the trend which it has taken and the hour I thought I would make a contribution. I believe that this is only the first of many debates about our slaughterhouses that we shall have in the months ahead. Sometime during the summer my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be announcing a different system for the sale of our fat cattle, and I am very concerned about how we are to deal with those cattle unless we get an early announcement about slaughterhouse policy.
  Before the war, we had several thousand slaughterhouses; today, it is only a few hundred. I do not advocate for one moment—indeed, it would be a physical impossibility for the Ministry of Food or any other Government Department—the building of sufficient new slaughterhouses to cope with the position which will arise probably in July. We have to see that there is a sufficient number of slaughterhouses throughout the country to deal with the cattle as they come from the farms. Hon. Members are well aware of the conditions under which the animals

  1715
  are slaughtered. They are rushed from the grading centre and many of them are killed hot. That is one of the reasons why meat has not been of such good quality. In other cases they are kept a day or two in the lairage before they are slaughtered.
  Coming to the constituency problem, my butchers feel that instead of each opening his own slaughterhouse, as was the case before the war, they could kill their own meat if one slaughterhouse were opened in each of several small towns. Certain work would have to be done before the slaughterhouse was ready, but they feel that this would be a much better arrangement than each man having his own.
  While that would work well in the country areas, something larger is needed in the large consuming areas. The slaughterhouses could be municipally or privately owned, but large ones are needed, capable not only of dealing with the meat as it comes in from the farmers, but also to see that there are ample refrigeration facilities to keep the meat there, so that during the flush period it can be held back a little. At all times, of course, meat is improved by being kept a while in a refrigerated room.
  Another problem which must be faced is the question of the calf trade. It is not generally realised that calves cannot be kept about long after they come off the farms, in fact, they should be killed the day they come from the auction market. So, whatever arrangements are made, we must have the Wholesale calf dealer back in operation as he was before the war. These men rendered great service to the farming community and to the consuming public in the way they presented calves quickly after the auctions in pre-war days.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred to the conditions of slaughterhouses and to sites. For a change, I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on his wisdom in selecting the site at Uddens for the new slaughterhouse to serve Poole and Bournemouth and North-East Dorset. My hon. Friend has gone right out into rural Dorset and has chosen a good site. When the slaughterhouse there is brought into operation, its effects will be felt over a large surrounding area. I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend
  1716
  can build slaughterhouses of that typo throughout the country, but I hope that in selecting sites the same course will be followed as was adopted in that case.
  8.54 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): I think it will be generally agreed that circumstances have provided an opportunity for leaving Sittingbourne for a while and examining some of the larger problems involved. If the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) will forgive me, I will deal with certain of the general issues which provide the background and then come to the case of Sittingbourne.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) began an examination of the general picture by asking about our experience in the two experimental slaughterhouses at Guildford and Fareham. The hon. Gentleman will not wish me to go into great detail, but I can say that many representatives of local authorities, and their specialist officers, have found from visits to Guildford and Fareham immense advantage in the preparation of the plans that many of them have made in the hope that soon they will be able to build their own slaughterhouses.
  Sunderland is, I suppose, the last of the series of nine new slaughterhouses that have been or are being built under Government auspices and which were commenced when the hon. Member for Sunderland, North held my office. I will come to the specific details as regards Sunderland in a moment, but, sticking to generality, let me come first to the hon. Gentleman's second question.
  In effect, he asks when the report of the siting committee is to come out, and he even asked me what it would contain. May I remind the House that before the war there were some 12,000 slaughterhouses, whereas today there are only about 600. In the early days of the war it was decided for a variety of reasons—not for the most part hygienic reasons, but for reasons of concentration and of Government policy in those difficult days—to use but a relatively small number of the 12,000 slaughterhouses. There has been a variation in the number both up and down since, but let me take the figures of 12,000 and 600. I do not pretend for one moment that all, or indeed the majority, of the 600 are very

  1717
  satisfactory establishments by modern standards.
  Now comes the new phase. Some 18 months ago was published the statement of Government policy, of moderate concentration combined with a restoration of the responsibility of local authorities, co operative societies and other bodies, of ownership and administration. That policy of moderate concentration—and here I answer the hon. Member for Sunderland, North—still stands. In order to give expression to that policy an inter-Departmental committee was set up, the so-called siting committee, in order to determine where those relatively few slaughterhouses could best serve the needs of the community.
  I know that the report of that committee has been anxiously awaited, particularly by those local authorities who cannot believe that any sensible committee would do other than recommend their area as a site for a new slaughterhouse. We have reached the stage of an interim report of that committee. In answer to a Question yesterday, I said that the report would shortly be published as a White Paper, and I can tell the House that it is expected to be published on Friday.
  Obviously, it would be improper to reveal what is in the report, but I think I can properly say that it deals with certain interim problems created by the decision to deration meat some time this year. If we look at the situation that results from derationing, it will immediately be evident that pending the building of those new abbatoirs which will no doubt follow from the main part of the committee's report, the siting part of the report, there is the problem of the provision of sufficient slaughterhouses to meet the needs on and after the derationing of meat. The interim report concentrates upon those interim problems of the interregnum between the event of derationing—the return of freedom—and the building, where building is recommended, of new abattoirs where they are needed. That is the general background.
  In reply to the constituency points which have been made, let me say at once that the slaughterhouse position, taken generally in the country, is unsatisfactory. There are, of course, exceptions; some are better than others. I would just say to the hon. Member for
  1718
  Faversham, with the greatest gentleness, that it is easy to arouse horror in people's minds in describing a perfectly satisfactory slaughterhouse, by concentrating on the morbid details and processes that transpire.
  I am not intending this as a rebuke or a criticism, but I think that a recital of the normal processes of the post-mortem room would of itself arouse a horror which did not necessarily justify a condemnation of the practice or procedure of those rooms. We have to be particularly careful to separate the legitimate hygienic grounds of criticism from the natural distaste of many people of a description of the process of destruction.
  When the hon. Member, in describing the slaughterhouse to which he was referring—and I shall not for a moment pretend that it is wholly satisfactory—introduced the statistics for diseased meat, for diseased animals, in his area, no doubt he was properly referring to a problem—the problem of disease in animals—but it had nothing to do with the conditions of that slaughterhouse. Do not let us be too horrific in this matter. Do not let us create too many vegetarians by the language we use. Many people prefer to eat such modest quantities of meat as they can obtain without necessarily having a detailed knowledge of the various destructive processes that have gone to its preparation.
  Even so, I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is a real problem at Sittingbourne. It is essentially a problem of congestion. It is not—I am now speaking within my general admission of a slaughterhouse position which is far from satisfactory—too bad by comparison with the general average level. It is congested, as the hon. Gentleman quite fairly pointed out. We arranged in 1949, after discussions with the local authority, to limit the daily kill to 10 cattle and 30 "smalls," if I may use that word in relation to the slaughterhouse and not to the clothes line. We have, by limiting the amount of the kill there, sought to meet an admitted problem of considerable congestion.
  What should happen? The hon. Member—I am not criticising him; he has done his task particularly well in pressing for this new abattoir—is really putting in

  1719
  a plea for a new abattoir in Sittingbourne. I think that is a fair summary of the position.
  Mr. P. Wells: Because of the conditions.
  Dr. Hill: He has not omitted one word that could be used in criticism of the conditions in order, quite properly, to press his case for a new abattoir. It would be open to us to close Sittingbourne slaughterhouse. If the local authority were to press us to close Sittingbourne slaughterhouse because of those conditions, it would be very difficult to resist that pressure. We do not particularly want to do so because we have the interim problem of carrying on between decontrol and the creation of new slaughterhouses. The siting committee which it is hoped will report at or before the middle of the year will make proposals for naming the areas in which new slaughterhouses should be built under the policy of moderate concentration.
  Mr. Callaghan: On Friday?
  Dr. Hill: No. Friday's report is the interim report dealing with certain pressing interim problems as between decontrol and the appearance of new abattoirs. The main report which will not be available for some months will name the areas. There is a great deal of work involved. I appreciate the need for haste, but that report will name the areas.
  Mr. P. Wells: We were told that two years ago.
  Dr. Hill: In that case, the repetition may hurt but at least it will inform the hon. Member. There is an inter-Departmental committee now in its final stages of preparing a report naming the areas. I do not know whether Sittingbourne will be one of the areas. I do not speak with any knowledge of the recommendations when I say that it would not surprise me if it were decided that the new abattoir at Canterbury could take on the work hitherto done at Sittingbourne. It would not surprise me if the Medway area were selected as a more appropriate area, some eight, nine or 10 miles away.
  All I have to say to the hon. Member—and he would not wish me to mislead him in any way—is that I cannot
  1720
  give him any assurance that Sittingbourne will be one of the recommended centres. All I can say is that the policy of moderate concentration will find expression in the report of the Committee which will appear some time this year; I hope at or before the middle of the year. I cannot hold out any hope that it will be Sittingbourne. I do not know the trend of the recommendations of the committee, but I know the geography of the area, and I am trying to suggest to the hon. Member that, in terms of Sittingbourne, he may not be a successful candidate for the favour of the siting.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) described the position in Cardiff. I have not seen the Cardiff slaughterhouse. I saw the Newport slaughterhouse which is 100 years old—probably of the same kind of age—and in the heart of the town. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not pretend that there is not a serious problem there as in many other towns; there is. Many slaughterhouses are old, out-dated and out-worn. I accept his statement as to the description of Cardiff. When the hon. Gentleman came to the question of the siting of the new one, he said something that I have heard before. Those in the centre of the town advocate with great conviction the advantage of its being on the outskirts of the town, and those who live in the residential areas on the outskirts adopt an air of superior disdain at the very thought of so lowly an establishment being situated there. But, thank goodness, the decision does not belong to us. It belongs to the planning authority of the area after consideration of the recommendations of the local authority.
  Mr. Callaghan: Who is the planning authority?
  Dr. Hill: No doubt it will be the planning authority for the area as a whole. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me too much on that point. I content myself by saying that the selection of the site, thank goodness, is not a responsibility of my right hon. Friend or myself.
  Mr. Callaghan: If it were, the hon. Gentleman would have a very easy get-out. He would agree with me that it should be sited in the docks where nobody lives but everybody works.
  Dr. Hill: I have always found it easier to agree than to disagree with the hon. Member, but I resist the temptation, for this is not a subject on which I have to say anything at all.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) began to praise me. I thought for one fearful moment that I was going to have to disclaim responsibility for the selection of the site of the slaughterhouse to which he referred. But I rejoice to say that he was referring to one of the fortunate areas, like that of the hon. Member for Sunderland. North, though I make no suggestion as to how it came to be so fortunately selected as one of the areas for the nine slaughterhouses which were decided upon by our predecessors, with the erection of which we have continued.
  In the case of Sunderland, I can add no more than the hon. Member for Sunderland, North knows. The project is at the tender stage. There have been great delays in the selection of the sites and in securing planning approval. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, who puts many points to me in vigorous party vein, has been good enough tonight to approach this question in a non-party spirit. We have a fearful problem. In part it is a problem of old slaughterhouses. In part it is the problem that we have reduced the number to 600 and that with the end of the Ministry of Food ownership of meat Ministry of Food responsibility for slaughterhouses ends. There is created immediately a need for more slaughterhouses, and that is at a time when the general policy is one of moderate concentration and the building
  1722
  of new slaughterhouses which conform to new, modern standards.
  We have two problems to face at one and the same time. One is the problem of the relatively few, good slaughterhouses and the other, in the interregnum, the need for a larger number of widely distributed slaughterhouses to secure the efficient distribution of meat. I frankly confess that we have the difficult problem of pursuing a long-term policy which will be commended by all and of meeting the immediate position after de-control of securing that enough slaughterhouses are temporarily opened or reopened for the purpose of meeting the public need in the meantime.
  The interim report faces this problem of an interregnum and to that extent meets a problem which is causing a considerable anxiety among the farming community, the butchers and those who are responsible generally for the distribution of meat. We shall need a good deal of thought and, if I dare suggest it to my old political adversary, the Member for Sunderland, North, we shall need a good deal of co-operation in order to solve a serious problem. It is a temporary problem, but one which will remain with us until the policy of moderate concentration finds expression in new, up-to-date, modern slaughterhouses conforming to scientific standards and to the public conscience of the day.
  Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes past Nine o'Clock.

  PAINTERS, DUNDEE (EMPLOYMENT)
  PAINTERS, DUNDEE (EMPLOYMENT)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS)
  NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BOARD (CHAIRMAN)
  NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BOARD (CHAIRMAN)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES REPORT (DEBATE)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES REPORT (DEBATE)
  SCOTLAND
    Teachers' Superannuation (Contribution Rate)
    Teachers' Superannuation (Contribution Rate)
    Teachers (Local Authority Membership)
    Teachers (Local Authority Membership)
    Adult Potato Gatherers (Payment)
    Adult Potato Gatherers (Payment)
    Conspiracy Trial, Edinburgh (Transcript)
    Conspiracy Trial, Edinburgh (Transcript)
    Haemophilia (American Serum)
    Haemophilia (American Serum)
    Housing (Statistics)
    Housing (Statistics)
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
    Commonwealth Division (Helicopters)
    Commonwealth Division (Helicopters)
    Books (Distribution to Forces)
    Books (Distribution to Forces)
    White Paper (Home Office Consultation)
    White Paper (Home Office Consultation)
    Imperial Defence College Courses
    Imperial Defence College Courses
  BRITISH ARMY
    Courts-Martial, Kenya
    Courts-Martial, Kenya
    R.E.M.E. Promotion (Circular)
    R.E.M.E. Promotion (Circular)
    Members, Kenya (Protection)
    Members, Kenya (Protection)
    Troops, Suez Canal Zone (Attacks)
    Troops, Suez Canal Zone (Attacks)
    Personal Case
    Personal Case
    Regular Enlistments
    Regular Enlistments
    Soldier, Belfast (Attack)
    Soldier, Belfast (Attack)
    Rankers (Commissions)
    Rankers (Commissions)
  TRADE AND COMMERCE
    Irish Greyhounds (Importation)
    Irish Greyhounds (Importation)
    Unemployment, Anglesey
    Unemployment, Anglesey
  NATIONAL FINANCE
    Fuel Oil Tax
    Fuel Oil Tax
    Coin (Further Issue)
    Coin (Further Issue)
    Foodstuffs (Import Duties)
    Foodstuffs (Import Duties)
    Estate Duty
    Estate Duty
    Animal Medicines (Tax)
    Animal Medicines (Tax)
  TELEVISION STATION SITE.NORTH HESSARY TOR
  TELEVISION STATION SITE.NORTH HESSARY TOR
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (LEGISLATION)
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (LEGISLATION)
  HOME DEPARTMENT
    Policemen (Road Accidents)
    Policemen (Road Accidents)
    Shattered Windscreens, Esher
    Shattered Windscreens, Esher
    Civil Defence (Estimates Committee Report)
    Civil Defence (Estimates Committee Report)
  HOUSING (STATISTICS)
  HOUSING (STATISTICS)
  SCHOOLS TELEVISION SERVICE
  SCHOOLS TELEVISION SERVICE
  SALVAGED SEA COAL
  SALVAGED SEA COAL
  SANITARY INSPECTORS (RECRUITMENT)
  SANITARY INSPECTORS (RECRUITMENT)
  B.B.C. SOUTH AMERICAN SERVICES (COST)
  B.B.C. SOUTH AMERICAN SERVICES (COST)
  GERMANY
    Ex-Luftwaffe Pilots (British Training)
    Ex-Luftwaffe Pilots (British Training)
    British Government Service
    British Government Service
  TRANSPORT
    Mersey Tunnel (Traffic)
    Mersey Tunnel (Traffic)
    Tamar Crossing (Technical Panel)
    Tamar Crossing (Technical Panel)
    Parking Lights
    Parking Lights
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN STAFF PAYMENTS)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN STAFF PAYMENTS)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

ABORTION BILL [H.L.]
2.35 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to abortion. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª and to be printed.

TRAPPING OF RABBITS
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government (1) the number or weight of home-killed rabbits sold annually in Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the last three years (to any convenient date); (2) how long have experiments been going on in designing humane rabbit traps, and whether any trap has yet been designed comparable to the ordinary gin trap as regards weight, efficiency and price.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, there are no records of the number or weight of home-killed rabbits sold annually in the United Kingdom, but it has been estimated by the trade that during the last three years an average of about 40 million home-killed wild rabbits have been sold annually for human consumption. Efforts to devise a humane rabbit trap have been going on for many years, but I do not know of any trap so far devised that compares with the gin trap as regards weight, efficiency and price.

BRITISH WAR DEBT TO AMERICA
2.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can state in round figures the amount of the debt owing by the United Kingdom to the United States at the conclusion on the 1939–45 war; in general terms, on what account that debt was incurred; and what amount of the debt has since been repaid by the United Kingdom to the United States.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, if I may assume for the purposes of this Question that the war came to an end on V.J. Day—that is, August 15, 1945—the position at that date was as follows. There was an outstanding loan contracted by Her Majesty's Government from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation under the Agreement of July 21, 1941, for a sum of 274 million dollars. This has now been repaid. There was also a liability to repay the United States 88 million ounces of silver. Repayment was to be made in kind within a period which has now been determined as ending on April 28, 1957. No payment has yet been made. Under a Joint Statement of December 6, 1945, Her Majesty's Government assumed a liability of 532 million dollars in respect of Lease-Lend and Reciprocal Aid. This figure was subsequently increased to cover items arising after August 15 by 90 million dollars. This gives a total debt of 622 million dollars, of which 43 million dollars had been repaid by December 31, 1953, leaving 579 million dollars still outstanding on January 1, 1954.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I thank the noble Earl for his Answer.

VICTORIA EMBANKMENT ROADWAY
2.39 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the chaotic

413
conditions on the Embankment roadway between Blackfriars Bridge and the Houses of Parliament, owing to the lack of co-ordination and proper planning, by which both sides of the road are in hand at the same time and parts of the road have been pulled up twice in eight weeks, thereby causing great inconvenience to traffic and the business community on that important thoroughfare, and what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.]
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, after the abandonment of the tramways along the Embankment in July, 1952, the City of Westminster and the City of London have taken the opportunity of reconstructing the whole Embankment at a cost of £250,000. The new road will be a dual carriageway and should greatly improve the traffic facilities. This is a big scheme and, I am afraid, has necessarily brought a measure of inconvenience to this area during the period of reconstruction. But from the outset the highway authorities—the City of Westminster and the City of London—have co-operated with each other and have thereafter brought into consultation the police, the statutory undertakers, the London Transport Executive and officers of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation.
A development of this character is necessarily complicated and requires to be carefully phased. This phasing which, among other things, has to consider the interests of traffic, has involved in certain cases temporary paving of roads and foot-paths which has subsequently had to be redone. My right honourable friend is satisfied that the highway authorities have done their utmost to reduce the public inconvenience to the minimum consistent with finishing the work in the shortest possible time. It is very much hoped that this whole scheme will be completed by early this summer.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for that reply. Arising out of it, is the noble Earl aware that the Public Streets Act, 1950, controls these matters, and will he ask the Ministry of Transport to see for the convenience of the public that this Act is enforced?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am informed that tie Acts concerned have been fully complied with. I have a reference here to the co-ordination required under Section 4 of the London Traffic Act, 1924. I am afraid that I have not a reference to the 1950 Act, to which the noble Lord referred.

PRIVATE BILLS (CONSOLIDATION)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that in the present Session all Private Bills for the exclusive purpose of consolidating the provisions of existing Private Acts of Parliament be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills and that the Joint Committee shall not take into consideration any petition against any such Bill if the petitioners seek to alter the existing law.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Resolution agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

PESTS BILL [H.L.]
2.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, although this Bill has the general title, "Pests Bill," it deals mainly with wild rabbits. Its aim is to make their destruction more effective and more humane, and it gives effect to Government decisions on some of the recommendations in the Report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals which was published in June, 1951. I expect that in the discussions on this Bill we shall refer frequently to that Report, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying how grateful we are to the Committee for their help and guidance. They dealt with a difficult and controversial subject and your Lordships will agree that the Report which they produced is excellent.
Most people are agreed that the rabbit is a pest. This is a fact that is repeated

415
very often—but with varying degrees of conviction. People who are not directly concerned with the production of food are sometimes inclined to think that the farmer is unnecessarily hard on the rabbit, so I think on this occasion it might be worth while mentioning again some of the reasons why the rabbit is condemned as a pest. It causes considerable damage to grass, herbage, green shoots, spring corn, roots and other crops, and it fouls and damages pastureland so as to reduce its stock-carrying capacity.
It is difficult to put a figure to this damage, but some striking results have been obtained from local trials. In 1950 a survey of rabbit damage in Kent showed that, if a plot of spring wheat was unfenced, its yield was reduced by 20 per cent. A wider survey of damage to winter wheat showed an average loss of yield of over 6 per cent. It is more difficult to assess the damage which rabbits do to grassland, but losses of over 25 per cent. of yield have been recorded in heavily infested areas. The damage to grassland is not so apparent because it does not arise when rabbits feed on the summer flush, when there is plenty of herbage for all, but in the spring, when the rabbits graze the early bite which is now so badly needed for cattle and sheep, and, of course, in the autumn and onwards when the herbage is thinning out.
In forestry, too, a great deal of damage is done throughout the rotation of the crop. Rabbits destroy much of the natural seedling growth in woodlands and so make it impossible to establish a new crop without the expense of raising trees in special nurseries. Rabbits also prevent the restocking, either naturally or artificially, of gaps in woodlands caused by windthrow or of small clearings. One of the reasons for lack of new growth by natural generation is damage caused by rabbits. In young plantations small trees may be killed outright by the stem being bitten through or by much of the bark being nibbled off. Where the trees survive they are usually deformed by having two of more leaders so that they lose in quality. Older trees are not altogether safe; the rabbits at certain times gnaw the bark at the base, which exposes the tree to disease and causes defects in the timber. Rabbits not only burrow among the roots of trees, endangering the stability of the crop; they
416
also destroy the hedges and hedge banks which give the plantations natural protection against stock. Apart from the serious loss in productivity and quality, the cost of protection against this kind of destruction is considerable. It entails erecting and maintaining miles of rabbit proof fencing the annual cost of which is in the region of £500,000 for State-owned plantations, and for privately-owned woodlands it might well amount to £1,500,000 or more.
Of course, there is a credit side, but it is far less than the losses caused by rabbits. Some people like rabbit to eat, but I am sure that not many realise that if it is an English wild rabbit, each helping, assuming a helping to be six ounces, has taken as much fodder to produce as seven lamb chops or 2½ Ib. of rump steak. Added to this, it is worth remembering that experts on nutrition believe that rabbit meat has only about half the food value of ordinary meat. The Select Committee on Agriculture in 1937 endorsed the view that the rabbit had seldom been killed which, when sold, did not owe somebody several shillings as a result of its activities. The Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals to which I have already referred considered that the economic interests of the country would best be served by the total elimination of the rabbit, if that were possible.
I think I ought to say something about myxomatosis and how it affects this Bill. The House will remember that the disease first appeared in this country last October, when infected rabbits were found on an estate of some 200 acres near Edenbridge in Kent. The Ministry did what was possible to prevent the disease from spreading before we had time to consider its implications, but there are now nine recorded outbreaks of infection in the south-eastern counties, stretching from Southwold in Suffolk to Lewes in Sussex. There are many different opinions about the part myxomatosis might play in getting rid of rabbits in this country, but I do not think it would be appropriate for me to go into them on the Second Reading of this Bill. Your Lordships will know that a Committee is considering this question and we hope to be able to report before very long. What is very much to the point is to ensure that, in areas where myxomatosis does kill off the rabbits, steps are taken to dispose of

417
survivors and to prevent other rabbits from moving in. That is important, because the surviving rabbits would soon multiply again and also because it is from these survivors that an immune strain of rabbits might develop. The control measures provided in this Bill, therefore, assume an added significance now that myxomatosis has appeared in this country. We shall want strong mopping-up operations by gassing and trapping to follow in the wake of outbreaks of the disease.
My Lords, as far as the details of the Bill are concerned, you will see that it is divided into two parts. Part I deals mainly with the destruction and control of rabbits and Part II deals with the use of spring traps. The first clause deals with rabbit clearance areas. No matter how many laws we pass, we are list going to get very far with the rabbit problem without combined efforts from all sections of the agricultural community. There are over 350 voluntary clearance schemes in operation, ranging up to 10,000 acres and mote in area, and covering about 1.500,000 acres in all. Unfortunately, efforts to organise voluntary schemes of this sort in Scotland have not met with any success.
Although we are now taking powers in Clause 1 of the Bill to make rabbit destruction compulsory in clearance areas, we have tried to preserve as far as possible the voluntary character of these area schemes. The areas to be schedules for clearance will be drawn up in consultation with the local interests; then when an area has been selected interested persons in the area will have an opportunity of objecting to the inclusion of their land, if for any good reason they think it should not be included. The obligations on occupiers within the scheduled area have statutory force and that will be to the advantage of the majority of willing participants, because they will know clearly what is required of them and that the job is being shouldered fairly by all.
The duty of the occupier to destroy rabbits on his land will be a continuing one and will not be discharged simply by clearing the rabbits once. Within a clearance area any occupier may take whatever action is necessary to destroy rabbits by trapping, gassing, snaring, netting or other such means. It should seldom be essential to shoot the rabbits
418
and we do not think that shooting would be the normal method of destruction. But, in dealing with rabbits that harbour in scrub and overgrown woodland, the only effective method may be to get the rabbits out of the scrub and shoot them as they come out. Provision has therefore been made for this.
The duty of destroying rabbits is, as I have said, being placed on the occupier and he must therefore be given the means of doing what is required of him. An occupier's right to kill rabbits may be restricted by his tenancy agreement, or he may have disposed of his rights. If in this case he needs to bring more people on to the land to shoot rabbits than are permitted to him under the Ground Game Act (that is, if he needs more guns than his own and one other person) he must apply for the consent of the landowner, or whoever has the rabbiting rights. If the consent were unreasonably withheld the occupier could ask the Minister or the Secretary of State for his consent. This provision follows fairly closely a similar provision which is in force in Scotland under the Agriculture (Scotland) Act of 1948.
Clause 2 enables the Minister and the Secretary of State to require the removal of scrub or other cover for rabbits and to require the erection of rabbit-proof fencing where it is not practicable to destroy the rabbits. To ensure that the reasonableness of each case is carefully considered, requirements of this kind must be given in an individual notice specifying what has to be done. Of course, no reasonable Minister would require a farmer to put up a lot of fencing to keep out other people's rabbits. The sort of case we have in mind is one where a large area has been cleared of rabbits except for, say, a small area of scrub in the middle which could not be cleared without a great deal of expense. Then, obviously, the thing to do would be to fence off the scrub. The present grant of half the cost of clearing rabbit-infested scrub in clearance areas will be continued and in approved cases extended to cover removal of earth banks and the erection of rabbit-proof fencing. To encourage farmers generally to adopt the most rapid, effective and humane means of destroying rabbits, without regard to financial return, we propose to continue the subsidy on gassing powder

419
under which a 7 lb. tin costs no more than 15s. The remaining clauses in Part I deal mainly with finance and procedure.
Part II of the Bill deals with trapping. The Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals condemned the gin trap and considered that its sale and use in this country ought to be banned within a short period of time. There is also a great deal of public feeling against the gin. Her Majesty's Government are in complete sympathy with this, and we are now seeking the power in Clause 8 to enable the sale and use of inhumane traps to be abolished in England and Wales. The Secretary of State for Scotland already has this power. Time must, of course, be allowed for effective substitutes to be provided and for gamekeepers, farmers, trappers, and others whose business it is to get rid of rabbits to adapt themselves to the new traps. Traps have already been designed to catch and kill rabbits without causing unnecessary suffering, and some of these have been tested on a fairly extensive scale, but I am afraid we cannot yet say with certainty whether, in general use, they would provide a complete answer to the trapping problem. It would not be in the interests either of rabbit destruction or of humanity, as the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals recognised in their Report, to bring about a state of affairs that resulted in there being more rabbits to be destroyed than would otherwise be the case.
It is estimated that there are some 3,000,000 gin traps in use in this country and a period of four years in which to prepare for their displacement has been allowed. The Minister may prohibit the use of any spring trap of which he has not approved as from a date fixed by him, but not earlier than July, 1958. I think there is little doubt that the effect of this Bill will be to stimulate the development and improvement of humane traps, because those who are interested in them either experimentally or commercially will know that the time when the gin can be banned will depend very largely on their efforts. I am able to tell you that one of the most experienced manufacturers of gin traps in this country has, for several years, been engaged in the development of a completely new design for a humane trap which he feels may
420
stand a chance of being so perfected as to compete with gin traps on level terms as regards usage, efficiency and price. The Agricultural Departments are taking a keen interest in this and other designs that are in process of development.
Clause 9 deals with open trapping. On this the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals considered there was some misapprehension. There seemed to be a tendency to associate open trapping with cruelty because it was customary to think about it in terms of gin traps. The open trapping of rabbits with gin traps would, of course, involve suffering, although the Committee considered that the argument that a rabbit caught in the open suffered more than one caught in a hole was open to dispute. The argument would, in any case, disappear if the trap used were of an approved humane type that killed the rabbit outright. The Committee went very fully into this question of open trapping and a special investigation was carried out by one of its members. They came to the conclusion that there were areas where it was quite impossible to control the numbers of rabbits without setting traps in the open and where, because of the ban on open trapping, there had been an appreciable increase in the number of rabbits. They considered, therefore, that it would be in the national interest that the Agricultural Ministers should be given power to authorise the use of spring traps in the open in appropriate circumstances. We have accordingly provided in Clause 9 that, in England and Wales, trapping of rabbits and hares in the open may be authorised by regulation or by licence.
Broadly similar provisions to those in Clauses 8 and 9 are applied to Scotland by Clause 10. The Scottish Act of 1948 gives the Secretary of State power to prohibit the use of the gin trap for catching rabbits or hares whenever he is satisfied that enough "approved" or humane traps are available. Clause 10 follows the general lines of the existing statutory provisions, but these are amended and widened so as to leave the Secretary of State free at any time to ban the gin trap for all purposes, subject, of course, to his being satisfied that enough approved traps are available. There is one slight difference between England and Wales and Scotland in the matter of open trapping, in that the Secretary

421
of State is satisfied that the limited demand and need for open trapping in Scotland can adequately be met by individual licences. So he does not seek the power which we consider necessary in England and Wales to make regulations authorising open trapping generally.
It will be seen that we have concentrated our attention in the Bill almost exclusively on rabbits. We have done this because we feel we have the means of securing an enormous reduction in the rabbit population. I only wish we could say the same about harmful birds such as the pigeon. The provisions of the Bill have been worked out in consultation with the interests concerned and in the light of the recommendations of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals; and we have acted upon the best advice available to us. I hope your Lordships will agree that the Bill should provide a useful and humane contribution towards the solution of the rabbit problem. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Carrington.)
3.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think the House will agree that this Bill is quite uncontroversial, though not for that reason unimportant, and no doubt that is one of the reasons why the Government thought fit to introduce it in your Lordships' House and not in another place. I am sure that we all agree that we ought to do much more than is being done at the present time to safeguard our home-grown foodstuffs from tine depredations of the rabbit, and that a much greater effort should be made by all concerned, first to reduce the numbers of, and ultimately to wipe out, the most formidable of our pests. What is very disturbing about the present situation is, first, the damage still done by rabbits despite all the efforts that have been made to reduce their numbers. I am glad that the noble Lord opposite dwelt at some length on these facts, because I think that they are not generally known to the public; if they were known a greater effort would be made to get rid of the rabbits. There is no need for me to re-emphasise the facts about the damage done by rabbits; that has already been mentioned. But it is a startling fact (this was not mentioned by the noble
422
Lord, although I am sure he will agree) that if we were to try to estimate in terms of pounds, shillings and pence the damage done annually to corn crops and growing grass, it would run into millions of pounds. Obviously, we cannot give even an approximate figure, but it is safe to say that the total damage done certainly runs into millions of pounds every year.
The other disturbing feature about our loss of food as a result of the depredations of rabbits (a feature to which I think the noble Lord did not refer), is that in many respects it would appear that in this campaign of man versus rabbit the rabbit is getting the upper hand. For instance, in a number of areas in the country it has been accurately estimated—so far as any estimates of the kind can be made—that the number of rabbits has actually increased in the last few years. This is a very sobering fact indeed, for it means that the persistent efforts that have been made by most farmers, by agricultural executive committees and by successive Governments (I remember the tremendous efforts which were made during the time that I was associated with the Ministry of Agriculture) have failed to achieve their principal object: we have not succeeded in wiping, out rabbits, Far from it. It is doubtful even whether we have managed to stabilise the rabbit population. It is certainly on the increase in some parts of the country.
This is where I think we all agree wholeheartedly with the provisions of the Bill. It is quite obvious that more must be put into this anti-pest campaign. We need fresh reserves of good will and authority; we need an even greater determination on the part of farmers, landowners and occupiers of land to do their bit by getting rid of their own rabbits. I am sure that at the present time the great majority are doing their best to keep their own rabbits down; but there are scattered farms and estates in different parts of the country where this duty has been neglected. Of course, rabbits spread very rapidly indeed from these rabbit-infested areas, however small they may be, and the work of a number of good farmers who have practically eliminated rabbits from their own farms can be completely ruined by one man, working quite a small piece of land, who does not take any trouble about his rabbits.

423
It is not sufficient to have the good will and co-operation of the majority on our side; if large areas of the country are to be permanently cleared of rabbits, we must have everyone on our side. That is where the provisions of the Bill about designation of clearance areas appear to be valuable. Unless we can get these large blocks cleared, and everyone within those blocks doing his bit, we shall not be able to eliminate the pest. If, of course, it were generally felt that to give your neighbours rabbits was as unneighbourly as to give them chicken pox or measles, then the problem would be easily solved. Unfortunately, although no doubt some people do feel that way, there are others who do not: and they also have to be catered for. That is why there is a need for more authority, as well as more persuasion. We should all prefer this task of clearing rabbits to be undertaken without compulsion. But, of course, while we must go on trying to get as much agreement as possible from those concerned, there is no doubt that the Government should have all the powers that may be required for effective action in cases where co-operation is not otherwise obtainable.
I am glad to see that in Clauses 1 and 2, the Government are asking for powers—which I regard as essential—beyond those given under the 1947 Act, to use compulsion where necessary in the clearance of rabbits. The only anxiety which I feel bound to express at this stage is that, when they are obtained, these powers may not be boldly used. There is nothing to oblige the Minister to use the powers for which he is asking even if Parliament agrees to give them to him. I am doubtful whether there are more than a few cases in which, under the provisions of the 1947 Act, farmers have been compelled to clear their rabbits, even when a very strong case of neglect can be made against them. It is a matter of psychology of Governments that they are reluctant to attract the unpopularity of coercive measures; that applies to Governments of every sort or kind.
I should like the noble Lord, if he will, in his final remarks, to assure us that the Government seriously intend to use these powers, if they are given by Parliament, as well as existing powers, whenever they are satisfied that their use is justified by
424
the circumstances in any part of the country. Part I of the Bill will be entirely useless if people begin to think that myxomatosis can be a substitute for rabbit control. That would be an extremely dangerous misconception, because it would mean an immediate relaxation of voluntary effort and would be the strongest possible argument against control by public authority. For that reason, I am sure that the more information the public have about the nature and the effects of this disease, and the sooner this information is generally available, the more surely any misunderstandings of this kind will be removed.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to the Committee that has been appointed to inquire into this disease. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can say how soon their Report will be ready, and whether, when the Report appears, he or his colleague will be willing to state, at the earliest practical moment after they have had time to make up their minds about it, the Government's policy in relation to this disease. The noble Lord said the Committee's Report will appear before very long. May I ask the noble Lord what he means by "before very long"? Does he mean within the next few months, or before the end of the year? That is a very important matter, from the point of view both of the spread of the disease and of the interest that farmers take in its character and effects. I shall be very much obliged if he will clarify that rather ambiguous statement when he replies. Or perhaps he would prefer to do it now?
LORD CARRINGTON: I mean in March, if that is possible.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: That is very pleasing to hear. I am grateful to the noble Lord. Evidently there is a sense of urgency in the work of the Committee. One other question about the Report that I should like the noble Lord to answer is this. Will the Report be generally available? Or will it be a private document, available only for information and advice for Ministers? I hope that it will be published, because I think that the need for information about this disease is very general.
May I pass now to Part II of the Bill, which deals with the prohibition of the gin trap and the substitution for it of a

425
humane spring trap approved by the Minister? I think everyone will agree with the purpose which the Government seek to achieve with this Part of the Bill. Indeed, your Lordships will remember a number of occasions in this House when noble Lords on both sides have tinged the Government to implement, by legislation, the two important recommendations in the Scott-Henderson Committee's Report—the Report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals. As we on this side take no less interest in the Report, the Committee having been appointed by my colleagues when they were in office, may I say how glad I was to hear the noble Lord say that the Government have accepted the recommendations of the Report. We, of course, wish to be associated with them in our attitude to the Committee's recommendations.
Your Lordships will remember that probably the two most important recommendations made by the Committee were, first, that the sale and use of the gin trap should be banned by law in this country; and, secondly, that it should be illegal to use any spring trap that has not been approved by the Minister. We welcome the intention, which is obvious from the Bill, to substitute, in the fullness of time, a humane trap for the gin trap, which the Scott-Henderson Committee wish to make illegal. At the same time, I must express my own disappointment—for although it has been partly removed by what the noble Lord has said, it has not been entirely removed—at the particular proposals in Part II of the Bill. I think the House is entitled to expect from the Government a full statement of their reasons for what appears to be a somewhat half-hearted attempt to face the issue of the gin trap. I think we should like to know why such a long time as four years is required before any date can be fixed for the prohibition of the gin trap, and why, in spite of this long delay, no date beyond the four-year period has been fixed in the Bill for the prohibition of the trap.
The provisions of the Bill are not by any means entirely in line with the recommendations of the Scott-Henderson Committee's Report. The Committee said that the gin trap should be banned "within a short period of time." They reported in 1951. Now, three years later, this Bill
426
has been introduced, and under Clause 8 the Minister cannot prohibit the use or sale of the gin trap before the summer of 1958—four and a half years from the present time. And even then, four and a half years hence, the Minister will not be tinier any statutory obligation to do so, or even to do so at a later date: it will still be a matter for his own discretion. Whatever happens, it is clear that there will be a further long period of delay before the earliest date can be fixed on which the trap can be made illegal. And there is no guarantee that, even after this long delay, the Minister may not find reasons for further delay before these traps are banned. These proposals will leave manufacturers and farmers in a stale of uncertainty about the future of the gin trap. Farmers will not be encouraged to replace gin traps by humane traps when purchasing fresh supplies of these articles; nor will manufacturers be encouraged to plan production in order to provide sufficient numbers of traps of humane design to fill the place of the gin traps as they become worn-out or useless and have to be replaced.
These were remarks which came into my mind when I was preparing what I proposed to say this afternoon. They have been to some extent countered by what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said. But I should be very grateful if, when he comes to make his final speech, he would be good enough to amplify what he has already said. Particularly, I should like him to answer this question: Is it the present intention of the Government to fix a date for the prohibition of the gin trap as soon as possible after the period of four and a half years has elapsed? I think there can be no question as to the need for an adequate supply of efficient alternative traps when the gin trap becomes illegal. In view of the very large number of gin traps that are at present being used, the provision of a sufficiently large number of alternative traps that are equally efficient, at approximately the same cost, is an essential condition for the prohibition of the gin trap. I do not think the prohibition should be delayed a day longer than is necessary for the requisite preparation to be made for the use of an alternative humane trap.
I was pleased to hear the noble Lord say that a new design of trap was under consideration. Does that mean an improvement on the Imbra, which I

427
believe is the latest type? I have seen the Imbra trap, and I am told that it is quite efficient compared with the gin trap, though not quite so cheap. I should like the noble Lord to say whether the trap of which he speaks will be an improvement on the Imbra trap; and, if so, in what respects. Will it be in respect of cost or efficiency, or in some other factor? However, I do think it is important to fix a date, as I have suggested—and for this reason. It is hard to see how the necessary preparations for the switch-over from one type of trap to another can be made by all those concerned—farmers, trappers, manufacturers, retailers, and so on—unless they are confronted by an absolutely certain date, after which the use and sale of the gin trap will become illegal. If they have that date clearly before them, they will have to adapt their practice to the changed conditions.
I should like the Government to consider whether they would be willing to amend the Bill so as to make it more certain that the gin trap will not be used after a sufficient period of time has elapsed for the alternative trap to be generally available. We shall listen with very great care to what the noble Lord has to say in reply to the debate, and to the contributions which will be made by other noble Lords who, in time past, have shown that they have special knowledge of this matter, and who will no doubt do so again to-day. Then, in the light of the information which will be available by the time the debate has concluded, we shall decide whether we think the Bill ought to be amended in order to make this provision in relation to the gin trap more effective than it is in the Bill as it now stands.
3.20 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I assure your Lordships that we shall be pleased to give a welcome to any measure proposed to control the breeding of rabbits in this country. As has already been stated, the value of rabbits for food is greatly counterbalanced by the damage they do to crops and food production. From my own recollection of where I lived in Scotland, I know that the people there did not eat rabbits at all, because they held, quite properly, that they could he counted as vermin and were not of great value as food. That has been con-
428
firmed by what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. We have no reason to be sorry that steps have been taken to control the breeding of rabbits in this country.
There is one point in the Bill about which I am not entirely clear: whether the trapping to be allowed is to be commercial trapping, because that has never proved to be quite satisfactory. Where the owners of rabbits make a certain amount of gain trappers are careful or manage it so that there is never complete extermination in any part of the country. I think more encouragement should be given to the clearance of the breeding grounds from time to time, and more work should be done in netting rabbits, which I think has proved successful in those parts of the country where it is being carried out now. I should like to support what both noble Lords have said about myxomatosis. I certainly do not think that that should be encouraged as a means of dealing with the rabbit pest, because I think it would result in a relaxation of any efforts that are now being made. Moreover it might not prove satisfactory, because it is certain that in time some strain of rabbit would be produced which would be immune to the disease. Therefore, we should not rely on that as a means of exterminating this pest.
I should like to say a word about Part II of the Bill. I am very disappointed to learn that there is no possibility of the banning of the gin trap until 1958 at the earliest. It was about four years ago when I first mentioned the gin trap in your Lordships' House, when talking about the Agriculture (Scotland) Bill. Then we had an encouraging reply. We were told that work was being done on an alternative trap. We had expected that by now the gin trap would be abolished by law. It seems rather sad that we have to wait for another four and a half years before that is possible, and there is no guarantee that at the end of that four and a half years something will be done to abolish it. So long as people are allowed to employ the gin trap, there will be no great encouragement for anyone to try to invent a different kind of trap. If, however, they knew that by a certain date the gin trap would be banned. They would be stimulated to endeavour to find some means of coping with the problem. This

429
is a point which will probably be raised on Committee stage and I do not want to detain your Lordships in regard to it any further. I should like to say on behalf of noble Lords who sit on the Liberal Benches that we welcome the Bill in its present form and are pleased to give it a Second Reading.
3.24 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, while welcoming the Bill and, incidentally, congratulating the Government on (I think for the first time) publicly classifying the rabbit as a pest, f am afraid I must confine my remarks to what I regard as the most important clause of the Bill, Clause 8, which deals with spring traps; or, to be more precise, which alas! fails to deal with spring traps. I am speaking as a Back Bencher who rather more than two years ago, in November, 1951, moved in your Lordships' House the Second Reading of a Private Member's Bill, the Spring Traps Bill, which was designed to end the scandal of the gin trap by January 1, 1954: and I am bound lo say that the present Bill seems to me to reflect little credit on either the head or the heart of the present advisers of Her Majesty.
May I remind your Lordships briefly of two or three of the salient landmarks in the long, sad, and in some ways almost incredible story of the gin trap? Perhaps, in parenthesis, since we shall be talking a great deal about the gin trap, I ought to say that the gin trap is the "ugly sister," so to speak, of the spring trap family: it is a spring trap, armed with teeth and jaws, which mutilates, without killing, millions of rabbits; and not rabbits only, but also dogs, cats, birds, ranging from golden eagles to blue tits, and other creatures, in tens of thousands every year. Not to go further back into this sad story than 1935, in that year the noble Viscount. Lord Tredegar, introduced a Private Member's Bill which would have abolished the gin, and which was defeated by only four votes. By 1951 the Government had set up the Scott-Henderson Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals, which has been mentioned so often already this afternoon. The Scott-Henderson Committee used words which cannot be quoted too often. They said that the gin trap is
"a diabolical instrument which causes an incalculable amount of suffering. Its sale and
430
use in this country ought to be prohibited by law within a short period of time."
That was in 1951. In November, 1951, with your Lordships' permission, I introduced a Private Member's Bill, designed to abolish the gin trap by January 1, 1954. At that time the noble Lords who spoke on behalf of the Government said, in effect, that whilst entertaining every sympathy with the objects of the Bill, they could not agree to the abolition of the gin unless and until some humane substitute had been proved to be 100 per cent. effective. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, who wound up, was, however, quite hopeful. He said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 174, Col. 603):
"We very much hope that the gin trap can he abolished by that date"—
"that date" being January 1, 1954, approximately three weeks ago to-day. And thus partially reassured, your Lordships defeated my Bill by a comfortable margin.
Two years have elapsed since then, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has just reminded the House, and during those two years, I am thankful to say, opinion in the country has been becoming increasing sensitive. My noble friend Lord Merthyr and I were both among the speakers at a great meeting convened by the Lord Mayor of Birmingham and designed to launch a campaign against the gin trap. All the mayors of the neighbouring boroughs were there, and several Members of Parliament. As a result of that meeting, a campaign was launched which has resulted in collecting already over 300,000 signatures to a petition against the gin trap. Unfortunately, I understand, the wording of the petition was irregular in some way, and it is doubtful whether it can be presented to another place. Nevertheless, it is significant evidence of a long overdue stirring of public opinion. Indeed, it has always been my experience that one has only to explain the nature of the gin trap to a British audience to arouse widespread horror and indignation.
This autumn, those of us who were interested in the original Private Member's Bill had prepared another, designed if possible to placate those noble Lords who were doubtful about the first Bill. This time, instead of saying that the gin must be abolished by such-and-such a dale, we were going to propose that the

431
Minister should have power to abolish the gin when he pleased, but that he should also have power to license, by way of exception, the use of the gin, after its abolition—in no case for commercial trapping, but for genuine rabbit clearance schemes—if and when it appeared to him that none of the now plentiful alternatives to the trap would prove effective. That might have commanded a considerable degree of support among your Lordships, for I believe that the clause permitting licensing might have brought over some noble Lords who were doubtful about our original Bill. Then, however—and I must not say "therefore"—just as we were looking for a date for the First Reading of our Bill, the Government announced the Bill which is now before your Lordships, the principal result of which—I think it would be fair so say the principal object—must be that nothing whatever can be done about the gin trap for four and a half years, and that after that, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has cogently pointed out, the Minister still remains entirely free to do nothing whatever.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in introducing the measure, referred several times to the fact that the Government were implementing the recommendations of the Scott-Henderson Committee. I took up my pencil and looked out for ways in which they were, in fact, in this Bill implementing those recommendations, and I noted that there was to be a subsidy on gas powder. But I cannot see how you are implementing the recommendations of a Committee which said that you ought to ban a diabolical instrument within a short period of time, by announcing three years later that you are going to do nothing whatever for four and a half years, and that you will then still be free to continue to take no action at all. I am bound to say that this Bill is not worthy of the long humanitarian history of this country. What is more, it is not even common sense. For we are all agreed that the gin trap is a source of abominable cruelty. We all know, or ought to know, that every night in the winter more than 200,000 creatures of different kinds are lying alive and mutilated in these instruments. It was common ground among those of your Lordships who opposed my Bill that you deplored this cruelty, just as much as did
432
those who supported the Bill. But noble Lords used the the only possible argument against the Bill, which was that the trap was needed for genuine rabbit-clearance schemes, and until some effective humane substitute can be devised we have to carry on using the gin trap. That is a respectable argument, so far as it goes.
Let me point out, in parenthesis, that you must distinguish between the genuine rabbit-clearance scheme and the commercial trapper who was mentioned just now by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. The commercial trapper will never, if he can prevent it, allow you to abolish the gin trap. The commercial trapper needs the gin trap, because it keeps the victim alive in the trap until he can visit it and find the animal fresh for the market. But the commercial trapper is a parasite on agriculture. The commercial trapper no more wants to destroy rabbits than the butcher wants to destroy sheep, for they are his livelihood. As has been shown by the use of Lincoln indexes, the commercial trapper kills off about one-third of the rabbits on a typical estate, and leaves the rest to breed for the following year. I believe it was the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who said it was disappointing that the rabbit population seems to be stationary, in spite of all the efforts of rabbit-clearance schemes. The answer to that is largely the commercial trapper, who kills off one-third, leaving the rest to breed, unobstructed by competition, and thereby does much to maintain a flourishing rabbit population.
However, your Lordships are not interested in commercial trapping but in clearance schemes. And I now want to put a further argument before you. Sometimes, when you are going to speak from my point of view on a Bill of this kind, people say that you should not talk about humane traps, because you will only get the whole argument clogged up with irrelevant controversy. But I think we must get this matter cleared up if we can. I want to put before your Lordships an argument seldom heard, but which I think is extremely cogent. I believe that this non possumus attitude—that we must wait until the humane trap has proved its efficiency 100 per cent.—is largely unjustifiable. I think there are three replies to the man who says that we must wait for the humane trap, and that cumulatively they are decisive. First,

433
many of us who support this Bill say that there is virtually no type of ground on which you cannot effectively destroy rabbits without the use of any trap, either humane or gin. I cannot go into the technical arguments now, even if I were qualified to do so; I can only refer your Lordships to two publications, both authoritative and one of them official. The unofficial one is the University Federation of Animal Welfare's pamphlet. Instructions for Dealing with Rabbits, which summarises the technique appropriate for many different kinds of ground, and very moderately sums up its general conclusions in this sentence:
"What can safely be said is that neither traps nor snares can succeed unless they are set in a hole or run, and that if a hole or a run can be found, then various other methods become available."
But I need not refer to unofficial publications, authoritative though I believe this particular publication to be, for in Volume 60 of the Ministry of Agriculture's own Journal, published last year, on page 39, there is an article by Dr. F. D. Smith on "Farming Against Rabbits," which commences with this sentence:
"I began my campaign against rabbits in the wrong way. I trapped them."
Later in the article he sums up his conclusions by saying:
"Trapping"—
your Lordships will notice he does not say "Gin trapping"—
has no useful place in a scheme for rabbit clearance."
So useful, apparently, did the Ministry of Agriculture think that article to be that they have republished it in leaflet form for wide circulation. We therefore say that to an extent—and to a considerable extent, I should have thought—we have the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture behind us when we say that you can work an effective rabbit-clearance scheme without the use of a trap, whether it be a gin trap or a humane trap. Of course, that argument has no meaning to the commercial trapper, but I think your Lordships are probably with me in excluding the commercial trapper from consideration.
As I have just said, in order that those of your Lordships who are still doubtful might, if possible, be converted, in the Bill which we were hoping to introduce
434
we had provided first, that there should be a fixed dale for the abolition of the girt trap, and then that the Minister should have power to license the use of the gin trap, even after its abolition, in circumstances in which he judged that none of the alternatives would be effective. But the clause was drawn in such a way that it would not permit the use of the gin trap for commercial trapping or by commercial trappers. That, surely, would have been the right course; and I believe it might have received support from many of your Lordships.
Finally, there is the third and, in some ways, the most interesting answer to the man who says that you must wait for the humane trap. I firmly believe that we shall never get a humane trap until we have set a date for the abolition of the gin trap. May I remind your Lordships—perhaps not remind all of you, because many of you are already aware—that the history of this attempt to devise a humane trap is at least fifty years old. I have here a quotation from an Annual Report of the Comptroller of Patents in. 1905. On page 11 this sentence occurs:
"A noteworthy growth occurred in vermin traps, accentuated no doubt by the offer of a prize for the most humane rabbit trap."
That was in 1905, all but fifty years ago. It is a matter of common observation in the history of technological discovery that the need provokes the answer. Professor Burkitt, summarising the history of inventions, actually used these words:
"Once something is definitely wanted, again and again it has been produced in an extremely short time."
He goes on to add that, conversely, if it is not really wanted it is not invented. The Field newspaper not long ago made precisely that same acute remark about the gin trap. It wrote:
"It has often been said that although the gin is deplorable it has to be used because there is no efficient substitute. In so far as this is true, it is only because there has never had to be an alternative."
Of course, we have lately seen that process—the urgent need rapidly evoking the answer—conspicuously at work in our own history in war time, where repeatedly the need for art invention elicited it within a few months, or weeks. I have little doubt that if the Minister would have the courage to fix a date for the abolition of this abominable instrument, we should

435
have the humane trap perfected probably within a few months. That is throwing to the winds for the moment my own basic argument that even the humane trap is not absolutely essential.
We who support earlier abolition say that there is no case in logic or in morals for the Bill as drawn at present, and that the reasonable course would be to amend this Bill in Committee: first, by substituting the words "not later than July, 1948" for "not earlier than July, 1948"; and, secondly, by adding a clause which would permit the Minister to licence exceptions after the abolition, when and where he judged necessary. Something like that policy—but only like in the sense that a ghost is like a living man—can be dimly discerned behind the rather cumbrous verbiage of Clause 10, which deals with Scotland. I am told that in fact trapping goes merrily on in Scotland—commercial trapping and all—because a general licence for trapping, including commercial trapping, has been issued by the Ministry. I will therefore end by suggesting to your Lordships that the alternative which I have tried to sketch would be a reasonable one, and that I hope your Lordships will pass this Bill this afternoon with the mental reservation that you will support Amendments on some such lines in the Committee stage.

KENYA: CONDUCT OF BRITISH FORCES
3.43 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS): My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the proceedings of the House for a few moments in order to make a statement, similar to that made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War, about the Court of Inquiry held by General McLean in Kenya. The statement reads as follows:
"The Court assembled on December 15 and completed its report on December 31. Evidence was taken from all commanding officers and from officers, other ranks, chaplains, and medical officers of all formations and major units now in Africa which have been involved in the operations. Others concerned were invited to give evidence.
436
and amongst those who availed themselves of this opportunity was the director of a native civil hospital and a bishop. I am satisfied that the Court, which took evidence from 147 military and civil witnesses, gave every opportunity to those concerned to appear before it.
"I told the House that when the Court of Inquiry had been completed I would make available a full and frank report. This I have prepared, and I can assure the House that I have omitted nothing of substance contained in the findings of the Court of Inquiry. As my report to the House is of necessity rather long, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
"I think that honourable Members will agree with me, when they have read it, that the summary of the findings indicates that the troops in Kenya have shown a high sense of responsibility and application to duty. There do not appear to be any grounds for accusing them of indiscriminate shooting, irresponsible conduct, or inhuman practices. There have, however, been allegations that in two instances serious misconduct occurred in the King's African Rifles. These cases are being fully investigated, and disciplinary action will be taken if required in the light of these inquiries. As I have already told the House, both General Erskine and I are determined that such matters shall be brought to light, and our intention, both in instituting the Court of Inquiry and in subsequent action, is for a clean-up and not a cover-up.
"I consider that the Court made a full and comprehensive inquiry, and that all the facts have been placed before me. Subject to what I have said about the allegations of serious misconduct in two cases, nothing is disclosed which should in any way shake the confidence of the House in the high standard of behaviour of the British Army. As a result of reading the report and visiting Kenya, I am convinced that the British Army, under difficult and arduous circumstances, has shown that measure of restraint, backed by good discipline, which this country has traditionally expected."
Following is a summary of the report made by the Court of Inquiry into allegations made during the trial of Captain G. S. L. Griffiths, D.L.I., against the conduct of the British Security Forces in Kenya.
Origin
1. Captain G. S. L. Griffiths, D. L. I., was tried by General Court Martial on 25th-27th November on a charge of murder of an African, and was acquitted. In the course of this trial certain allegations were made against the conduct of the British Security Forces in Kenya.
A Court of Inquiry was assembled by G.O.C.-in-C., East Africa, on 15th December, 1953, to inquire into and report on these allegations.
The President of the Court was Lieut.-General Sir Kenneth McLean, K.B.E., C.B., and members—Colonel G. Barret, O.B.E., Deputy Director, Army Legal Services, War Office and Colonel G. A. Rimbault, D.S.O., M.C., Deputy Chief of Staff, East Africa Command.
Terms of Reference
2. The Court were instructed to inquire into and report on the allegations made at the G.C.M. on Captain Griffiths in respect of:—

(a) the offering to soldiers of monetary rewards for Mau Mau killings;

(b) the keeping and exhibition of score boards recording official and unofficial kills and other activities against Mau Mau;

(c) the fostering of a competitive spirit amongst units in regard to kills in anti-Mau Mau operations.

3. In addition, the Court were instructed to inquire into any other actions which might come to their notice which reflected discredit on the Army and. in particular, into:—

(a) any other inhuman practices such as the cutting off of bards from Africans killed during the course of anti-Mau Mau operations;

(b) any other matters which reflected on the honour of the Army.

They were, however instructed that, with the exception of inquiring into the operations of 39 Infantry Brigade from their arrival in Fast Africa, and in particular into the specific allegations that a £5 reward had been offered for the first "kill" by one of its battalions, they would confine their inquiries to matters which occurred after 1st June, 1953.
Method
4. The Court assembled on 14th December, 1953, and completed its report on 31st December 1953.
During this period it took evidence from all formations and major units (Lieut.-Colonels' Commands) now in Africa which had been involved in anti-Mau Mau operations.
5. A representative cross-section of witnesses was heard from each major unit, ranging from
438
the Commanding Officer to other ranks and including, where possible, the chaplain and medical officer.
In addition all units published orders giving details of the subjects being investigated by the Court and inviting any person wishing to do so to give evidence.
The Court heard evidence from 147 witnesses and these included six Army chaplains and four regimental medical officers, the Director of a native civil hospital and a Roman Catholic Bishop. The Christian Council of Kenya were invited to put forward any specific allegations against the conduct of the Army of which they were aware, but replied that they had no such matters to put forward.
Background
6. The area in which the Army in Kenya is operating comprises:—
(a) The Prohibited Areas
Areas consisting largely of forest and mountain, gazetted as prohibited by the Kenya Government, into which no persons other than members of the Security Forces or a small number holding a special permit are allowed to enter. Under Kenya Emergency Regulations, Security Forces have the right, if necessary, to shoot on sight.
(b) The Special Areas
These are areas, gazetted as such, in which certain special rules regarding the use of firearms apply. Any person in a special area who fails to halt after being challenged is liable to be shot. The special areas include the Kikuyu, Embu and Meru Land Units, commonly called "The Reserve," and also parts of the Kenya Highlands in the Central and Rift Valley Provinces in which lie the farms and ranches of European settlers, commonly called "The Settled Area."
Allegations
7. The offering to soldiers of monetary awards for Mau Mau killings
The Court found one instance where a reward was offered to a unit for getting a specific criminal. The battalion had been warned that a notorious Mau Mau leader, for whom the Government had offered a reward of five thousand shillings, was in the vicinity and that they were to undertake operations against him. Two of the Company Commanders, with the approval of the Commanding Officer, offered one hundred shillings to the unit which killed or captured him. This amount was to be laid out in kind for the benefit of the successful unit or sub-unit and was not to be paid to any individual. The Court considered that this offer, though mistaken, was explicable in the circumstances obtaining at the time.
There was also one instance which has already been publicised where a Commanding Officer offered £5 to the first sub-unit to kill a terrorist, as an encouragement to the troops when the battalion first went into action in anti-Mau Mau operations, The battalion was going into operations in the prohibited area (an area of thick forest) where no one other

439
than the Security Forces had the right to be. The Court came to the same conclusion, as in the previous case, bearing in mind that it could not possibly recur because the G.O.C.-in-C. has since expressly forbidden the offering of monetary awards of any kind.
An instance also occurred where a Commanding Officer had given discretion to his Company Commanders to give rewards in the form of money, leave or other privileges to individuals or sub-units who put up an exceptionally good performance in operations. The assessment of a very good performance was not expressly related to kills. Monetary awards of this type will not recur.
Apart from the instances mentioned above and the rewards offered by Captain Griffiths as admitted in his evidence at his court martial, there is no other evidence of the practice of offering soldiers monetary or other rewards for killing Mau Mau in any of the units which they investigated.
8. The keeping and exhibition of scoreboards recording unofficial kills and other activities in operations against Mau Mau.
The Court understood the term "scoreboard" to be used in a derogatory sense and to refer to a visual record kept and displayed solely or mainly to foster unhealthy and irresponsible competition in killings between units and sub-units.
It is necessary for all formations, units and sub-units to collect and consolidate information recording all incidents in order to complete the periodical situation reports required by higher formations, and to show clearly to Commanders at all levels the progress of operations. The incidents so recorded include casualties to Mau Mau and to our own troops, prisoners captured, arms captured or lost, contacts with gangs, cattle stolen, etc.
The Court found that in platoons such information was kept in notebooks or memorised. In companies it was normally kept in notebooks or on pro formas in files. In some Company, Battalion and Brigade Headquarters, these incidents were consolidated graphically in the form of wall charts for the greater convenience of Commanders.
All these forms of Charts were considered perfectly legitimate and reasonable. There was no evidence that they were used for any improper purpose. Moreover it was clear that without exception they were kept in offices to which access was severely restricted. There was no evidence of records of unofficial killings whether this phrase is used in the sense of Mau Mau wounded and believed killed or in the sense of Africans other than the established Mau Mau who have been killed.
The Court's finding was that allegations of the exhibition of "scoreboards" recording official and unofficial kills and other activities in operations against Mau Mau were unfounded. Nothing more appeared to have been kept than charts recording official incidents consolidated from Situation Reports, which were kept in offices to which access was severely restricted.
9. The fostering of a competitive spirit amongst units in regard to kills in anti-Mau Mau operations.
The Court found that it was widely recognised amongst all ranks that the number of kills obtained by units depended largely on opportunity and that a captured Mau Mau who might possibly give valuable information was better than a dead one. Units' and sub units' capabilities appear to have been judged not by their total of kills but by the number of successful operations they carried out, including the capture of prisoners. When battalions were operating solely in a prohibited area, the capture of arms and prisoners was rare due to the conditions prevailing in those areas and the number of kills therefore acquired a greater prominence.
Due to very wide dispersion the rivalry between battalions appears to be negligible. Members of different battalions seldom met and in no cases did the Court find that witnesses knew the total kills in neighbouring battalions. There was somewhat more rivalry between companies within a battalion and still more between platoons in a Company. The Court satisfied themselves that the competitive spirit did not go beyond the natural rivalry to be found between sub-units in all good regiments in the British Army.
The Court found that allegations that the competitive spirit was being deliberately fostered amongst units in regard to kills in anti Mau Mau operations were unjustified.
Identification of Mau Mau killed in operations
10. The Court also investigated whether the practice existed in the Army of cutting off the hands of Africans killed in operations and bringing these hands back as a means of identification.
The normal practice when an African is killed by troops during operations in the Special Areas is for the body to be brought back to the nearest police post where it is handed over to the police.
In the Prohibited Areas the normal practice is for the body to be brought back by a patrol if this is possible. If this is impossible due to distance, terrain, or for operational reasons, identification papers if any, are removed from the body. When no papers are found finger-prints are taken with pads and ink specially issued to patrols and particulars of the corpse are recorded. If operational considerations permit, the body is then buried. The papers and finger prints are handed over to the police on completion of the operation.
It appears that in the early phases of anti Mau Mau operations and in the Prohibited Areas it was an accepted—although not a universal practice—to cut off either one or both hands from a body where the body could not be brought in and there was no other means of identification. The hand was brought back in order that finger prints could be taken from it. This practice was dictated by the necessity of reporting all Mau Mau casualties to the police. This practice started to decrease with the wide issue of finger printing equipment

441
to units and has now been specifically forbidden, even if it means the loss of an identification.
It appears that in six instances (one of which was in the Special Areas) involving three battalions, hands had been brought back as proof of identification of Africans killed since 1st August, 1953. In each case this mutilation was carried out in good faith, on the instructions of a European officer or N.C.O. in view of the lack of other means of identification and was explicable in the operational circumstances. G.H.Q., East Africa, issued a further order on 1st January, 1954, accepting the loss of an identification if other methods were not available.
11. Inhuman practices—the torture and beating up of African prisoners and the illegal killing of Africans.
Normally prisoners when captured are immediately questioned by members of the sub-unit which captured them (assisted where necessary by personnel of the Kenya Regiment, Police or Home Guard to act as interpreters) in order to obtain information as to who they are and whether they cart guide the unit to a Mau Mau hideout. On conclusion of operations those retained as suspects are normally brought back to unit headquarters and handed over as soon as possible to the police—in some cases after further interrogation by the battalion Intelligence Officer.
The Court found no evidence whatever of African prisoners having been severely beaten or tortured by Army units for the purpose of forcing them to give information or for any other purpose, except in certain specific instances in two Kings African Rifles (K.A.R.) Battalions which are discussed in paragraphs 12 and 13 below. In fact, in British battalions the troops were as always, most sympathetic to their prisoners, offering them tea and cigarettes. As one witness put it to the Court "The prisoners put on weight whilst they are with us." Nor did the Court find any evidence of the illegal killing of Africans, except in certain specific cases which are discussed below.
12. Inhuman practices in K.A.R. battalions.
During June, 1953, one Company of a K.A.R. Battalion acted as Mobile Reserve to 70 (East Africa) Infantry Brigade and was detached for some weeks from its parent battalion. Apart from the incidents on 11th June which gave rise to the trial by court martial of Captain Griffiths, at which he was acquitted, there were certain other specific allegations against officers and men of this Company. These allegations are still under investigation.
13. Certain specific allegations have also been made that certain African prisoners base been ill-treated in another K.A.R. Battalion. A full investigation is now being made.
Honour of the Army
14. Other than the allegations in relation to the two K.A.R. Battalions referred to above, which are now under separate investigation, there is no evidence of any inhuman conduct towards Africans on the part of the Army.
15. Conclusion.
The above is a full and frank summary of the findings of the Court. It is my opinion, after reading the findings of the Court, that the incidents referred to in paragraphs 12 aid 13 above, though deplorable, are rare aid isolated. Allegations that such practices are or ever were widespread in the British Army are without foundation. Its conduct, under difficult and arduous circumstances, showed that measure of restraint backed by good discipline which this country has traditionally expected.
3.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and gallant Earl, the Minister of Defence, for having submitted to the House, this statement, which I understand is an exact replica of that submitted in another place. It is not possible to make any special comment upon the matter until all Members of your Lordships' House have had a chance of studying the summary of the report which it is intended to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I should like, therefore, to reserve the position of my noble friends on this side of the House, because we may desire to raise the matter again when we have had an opportunity of conferring upon the results shown.
We are happy to learn from the statement made by the Minister that the findings of this Court of Inquiry indicate that there have not been widespread instances of the kind of conduct which was complained of, for example, in the Griffiths case. I am quite sure that will be the desire of the noble Earl who has just submitted the statement to this House, with all his great reputation in general service and in the leadership of the Forces, that the position of honour amongst all the forces of the world which the British Forces have pre-eminently maintained in the past., shall be kept untouched, and that therefore all proper steps will be taken. On the other hand, I am in a rather difficult position. My noble Leader is out of the country and will be for some weeks. But when the first announcement of the Inquiry was made he did raise a specific issue which he put to the House, which was that he thought the proper form of the Inquiry should be a public inquiry.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): I do not think he put it quite as strongly as that.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I thought it was fairly strong, and I have refreshed my memory by reading the OFFICIAL REPORT. Can the Minister tell me whether it is intended to publish the full report, and not merely the summary which is to be circulated with the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House, so that if we come to the happy solution that, in general, any widespread charge has been disproved, that will be known to the public as a whole in detail, or whether the Government are going to confine themselves to this particular statement. I hope that as the public inquiry procedure has not been adopted, the fullest report will be issued, with, if possible, a report of the evidence. The two Houses of Parliament have had made available to them the minutes of evidence in the court-martial case, and those of your Lordships and Members of another place who have had an opportunity of seeing the kind of evidence there produced must have some disturbance of mind until we can be sure from the fullest evidence of this particular Inquiry that the matter has been—to use the Minister's own words—"cleaned up and not covered up." I simply say that I am much obliged to the Minister for making the statement, but I should like to know whether the full report will be circulated.
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: This summary, which is a full summary, is going to be circulated for the convenience of your Lordships and of honourable Members in another place. We felt it would be better than publishing the complete proceedings of the Court of Inquiry. But if noble Lords feel they would like to see the complete findings of the Court of Inquiry I will look into the matter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I am very much obliged to the noble and gallant Earl. As I have said, I have had no opportunity of conferring with my colleagues on the matter, and I should like to do so. There is one other point on which I should be glad to have a reply, though not necessarily today. I should be glad to know whether the Minister can at some time make some statement as to the steps, if any, which are to be taken to prevent the selection of undesirable officers for native regiments, such as the King's African Rifles, with a view to the prevention of a possible
444
repetition of such incidents as have occurred. I will say no more than that at the moment, but I feel that it is vital that there should be extraordinarily careful selection of officers for these native regiments.

PESTS BILL [H.L.]
3.52 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I, in common with your Lordships, welcome this Bill, but there are a few doubts in my own mind as to its application to Scotland, and my own part of Scotland in particular. I congratulate the Government on having classed rabbits as pests, but how great a pest the rabbit is is a matter which varies from place to place. The amount of damage that can be done by rabbits, too, can vary considerably from condition to condition. Ninety per cent. of farmers are farming because that is their business and their livelihood; their aim and object is to earn as good a living as they can for themselves and their employees. Within these limits, rabbit damage can have a large or small application. In the case of Scotland, chiefly in my part of Scotland, the damage is to root crops grown for cattle, and also to grazing in the early bite period. If there is a plague of rabbits, obviously the losses are very great. If rabbits are controlled they are still a nuisance. But you do not often find Scottish farmers saying, "Right: no rabbits; we keep two more head of stock"—and a jolly good job, because the really trying problem is not the food but the housing. A man may kill off his rabbits, but he still has to have additional housing and to reorganise considerably his method of farming. He has to consider the subdivision of his farm. There are one or two aspects like that, which do not make altogether attractive the killing off of all rabbits. In Scotland, at any rate, it is not as attractive a proposition as I should like to see.
Then there is the other big point, the cost of killing rabbits. A number of noble Lords have talked of commercial rabbit killing. Whether they include in that the landlord or the farmer who kills off his rabbits and sells them and sets the income towards the cost of killing rabbits,

445
I am not sure; but I must admit that I consider it a legitimate thing to do. It costs a lot of money to kill rabbits. The noble Lord spoke of 40 million rabbits a year. Well, my Lords, a rabbit is sold for not less than 2s. 6d. a time. That would mean £5 million, which is a large amount of money to be devoted to the killing of rabbits. I think it is legitimate that the people who have to find the £5 million should be encouraged, or at any rate should not be discouraged.
The insistence on rabbit clearance areas worries me a little. Much depends on how much the authorities insist on the necessity of killing the last rabbit, and upon how much they treat the problem on its reasonable merits. In my part of Scotland it is a very difficult matter. One might have an authority demanding a large quantity of expensive fencing to keep out a very few rabbits. It is not at all clear how these things are going to be done. I should say that "rabbit control area" would probably be a better term, and it would not frighten the people concerned quite so much. Moreover, there is no mention whatsoever, or intention, so far as I can see, of giving compensation for incurring this great expense. Killing rabbits is a very worthy object; but if people are obliged to go to this heavy expense it is surely just that this matter should be considered as one ranking for compensation. I am not trying to "crab" the Bill: I am all in favour of it; but I think that efficiency is the first requisite of a Bill if it is to work freely and well. Then there is the thorny question of rabbits in areas under the control of local authorities—nationalised industries and other people, who appear to be above all laws. I should like a definite assurance from the noble Lord, if possible, that these bodies will be swept into the provisions of this Bill. There, are such bodies as the National Trust, the National Coal Board and the Railway Executive (for railway embankments, like road verges, are infested with rabbits). I hope that they are not going to be left out, for that would be a great pity.
Part II of the Bill provides for the use of the humane trap. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be in a position to assure us that an efficient humane trap will be provided—or, if they cannot do that, and feel justified in doing anything at all, that they will abolish all traps. To foist an inferior trap upon us
446
because it is humane, and for no other reason, and to abolish inhumane traps, would be a poor solution. It would be a better policy altogether to abolish traps, if the Government are convinced that we can do without trapping. I personally am not convinced. It is important that any trap which is devised should be approximately the same weight and cost as a gin trap.
I cannot see why a fellow pest, the rat, should be excused or treated less humanely than the rabbit. Here, however, we have some facts and figures to go on, and there is an efficient alternative. Her Majesty's Government, I think, could abolish to-morrow gin traps for rats and mice and small pests of that sort. The introduction of the warfarine poisons for rodent control in the last two or three years has resulted in a spectacular reduction in the numbers of rats. Figures are always hard to go by, and hard to come by, but I can tell your Lordships, as you probably know, that the counties of Hampshire, Kent, Aberdeenshire, Kincardineshire and Renfrewshire have been able to pay off a large number—in some cases all, in others a large proportion—of their rat-catching staff. You can bandy about figures of how many rats you have killed, and how many are left, but the fact that you pay off a trapper does mean that there are fewer rats left. That is more to the point than talking about how many millions of rats you have killed. The local authorities in Bristol, Folkestone and several of the London boroughs have done the same thing. If you can humanely—and A is humane—kill your rats with poison, why are they not entitled to as humane treatment as rabbits are? You have the answer there, but with rabbits you have not the answer; I wish you had.
The other point is that the life of a gin trap or a spring-operated trap is of the order of three to four years, possibly five. Surely, if we wish to control effectively the use of gin traps, the best thing to do is merely to prohibit the manufacture of any further gin traps. No legislation is needed for that—at least, it may be, but no other control is necessary. We do not want people minim; about in cars, with secretaries. They would not be called rabbit-catchers; they would be known as rabbit prevention officers, and

447
they would have a car and a secretary and all the usual things. Why not just prohibit the manufacture of traps except those that are equally efficient and humane?
4.3 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Listowel and others who have emphasised the importance of the matter with which this Bill deals, but, in view of some of the speeches which have been made since, I can hardly follow him in saying that it is entirely uncontroversial. When we come to Part II of the Bill there is ample room for controversy. I should like first to refer back to the remarks made by the Minister who moved the Second Reading, with regard to the amount of damage done in this country by rabbits. He gave us a striking illustration by his comparison of the value of rabbit as food—the amount of food required to produce a helping of rabbit and what that food would have produced in other directions. But I would suggest to him that the Department might carry that type of illustration a little further and try to work out figures to give an idea of what the total damage amounts to.
I think I am right in saying that the survey to which he referred showed a loss of winter wheat of 1½ cwt. per acre. The Minister gave it as a percentage, but I think it is 1½ cwt. per acre. The pilot survey on spring wheat, made in Kent in 1950, indicated that the loss was of a similar nature, possibly a shade more. If we take that figure of 1½ cwt, of grain per acre and relate it to the total acreage under corn in this country to-day, we arrive at a staggering figure. I believe there is something like 6¾ million acres under corn. Allowing for the fact that other parts of the country may not suffer as heavily as those in the survey, if the loss is only 1 cwt. per acre the total loss of corn is something of the order of 330,000 tons, and that, I suppose, even at present-day prices, represents something in excess of £10 million. The loss might well be £15 million if we took the 1½ cwt. figure. When to that is added the loss on fodder crops and vegetable crops, and the loss of feeding-stuff for cattle and sheep, we may very well be dealing with a pest which is costing us something like £20
448
million a year, which I put as being something like 2 per cent. of the total value of our agricultural production. As the Ministry has set a target of increased agricultural production of 160 per cent. of pre-war, it is important that we should not be losing 2 per cent. of it as a result of the operations of the rabbit.
When we come to deal with efforts to effect a diminution of this pest, I think the answer to Part I of the Bill is just to what extent is the Minister going to use the powers which are conferred on him by this section? I think I am right in saying that at the present time the most tragic example of the loss due to rabbits is to be found in the case of the small farmer who himself has cleared his own land but sees his crops being eaten and his land reinfested because his neighbours have not been as good farmers as he is. I wonder whether the reports of the county pest control officers indicate whether there is any particular type or class of offender in this respect. I have heard many farmers say they are completely at the mercy of their neighbours who are concerned with their shooting rights and who will not effectively clear their land of rabbits because that clearance would disturb the game. I think this is an instance where we have to say bluntly that the national loss attributable to rabbits is of much greater importance than shooting rights; and if reports indicate that reinfestation comes because rabbits are not cleared from land where shooting rights are regarded as important, we shall expect the Ministers, with the powers conferred under this Bill, not to be too tender about those shooting rights.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I hope that we in this country shall not have a wide-spreading of myxomatosis, and I hope particularly that farmers will not sit back in the belief that the disease will spread and thereby save them the necessity of taking active steps. I find it very sad already to hear farmers who are suffering from reinfestation from their neighbours saying, in a despairing sort of way: "Well, I suppose all we can do is to hope that myxomatosis will clear out my neighbour's rabbits." That is rather a reflection on the state of affairs which exists to-day, and I hope that the Minister will use his powers under Part I of the Bill in a drastic way.

449
I am bound to say that I find Clause 8 of the Bill a deplorable clause, not only, and not even mainly, because it gives 1958 as the first date on which the abolition of the gin trap may come about—and it may, of course, be a much later date—but because the clause as it is drawn tends to give colour to the idea, which I believe to be fallacious, that trapping is an effective method of destroying rabbits. In my opinion, trapping is much more a method of preserving than of eliminating rabbits. I know that upon this issue the National Farmers' Union will be officially against me, but equally I know that thousands of farmers up and down the country share my view that trapping is not a means of destruction but a means of preservation. I should like to quote to your Lordships a few words from a practical Gloucestershire farmer who has been waging a ten-year battle to clear his farm of rabbits. He says:
"Trapping appears to make a striking clearance of rabbits. It also brings in a nice quick cheque."—
sometimes, if I may interpolate, it is nice quick cash, rather than a cheque—
"But in fact, trapping does rabbits good. The diseases that decimate them when they are too thick on the ground are kept in check by trapping."
In the Farmers Weekly of October 30, towards the end of a scientific article on myxomatosis, the writer refers to the two real sources of rabbit abundance. He says:
"So long as land is badly farmed (by allowing hedges and other cover to grow out of control), and so long as any form of maiming or killing traps, whether the live-taking toothed-gin which breaks the legs of all small animals trapped, or the 'humane' gin which usually causes instantaneous death, is used, and the stoats and weasels wiped out thereby, the rabbit will remain a perennial pest.
This is proved by the fact that on land where hedges are clean and without holes, and where traps are forbidden as well as unnecessary, rabbits are no problem at all—always of course excepting on those farms which, though in a high state of good husbandry, border on rough land, railway embankments and other sources of re-infection."
To my mind, those are two practical views indicating that trapping is not the effective weapon that it is supposed to be. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, has said, just as we have found war farine to be the most effective weapon against rats, so I believe that gassing is much the most effective weapon against rabbits. I was glad to hear the reference
450
to the subsidy for gassing material, but I would suggest to the Ministry that if they want to make an immediate and effective contribution to the destruction of rabbits, the immediate announcement of an even heavier subsidy on gassing materials in time for this season's drive to be undertaken would meet with a ready response. I believe it is mainly along the: lines of education in tie use of gas, the condemnation of the use of trapping, and the cheapening of the use of gas that an effective step will be made upon this job.
4.15 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it is obvious that this Bill is acceptable to noble Lords in all parts of the House. As the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading has pointed out, the rabbit has now reached the stage where its food value and fur value are far outweighed by its powers of destruction of agricultural products. Lord Stonehaven read the Bill a little differently from the way in which I read it. As I understand it, this Bill will place the occupier of any land in a clearance area under an obligation to eliminate the rabbits, regardless of whether the land is used for agriculture, for forestry or for any other purpose. There can be no doubt that this is a very necessary move; without it, the land within a clearance area belonging to occupiers other than agricultural occupiers might well become a harbouring ground for rabbits, with the consequential re-infestation of the agricultural lands once they have been cleared.
Although I welcome this Bill, I consider that there are some points which require serious consideration, most of which are in Part I. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to enumerate those. My first point relates to Clause 1 (4) which, as your Lordships will appreciate, empowers the Minister, on an application by a tenant, to authorise additional persons to carry firearms on his land for the purpose, of shooting rabbits—that is, over and above the two already permitted under the Ground Game Act, 1880. I believe that this clause is intended by the Minister to apply to a very limited number of cases, such as that of scrubland, to which the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading referred. It might also be argued that as the Minister has to satisfy himself that the owner has unreasonably

451
withheld his consent, the owners' interests are adequately safeguarded. I respectfully submit that the proposals contained in this clause involve a wholly unnecessary interference with the landlord's discretion as to the management of his land. There are alternative, and less drastic, means available for securing the result everyone desires. All that is necessary, in the event of a landlord or sporting tenant failing to give his consent to the additional guns, is that the liability for the killing of rabbits on that particular piece of land should fall upon the landlord or the sporting tenant, whether or not his reasons for refusal are reasonable, but subject to the tenant's having tried all other available means of destroying the rabbits. Should the landlord or the sporting tenant then fail to take the necessary steps, the agricultural executive committee would be empowered to order the destruction of the rabbits and, if necessary, to exercise default powers.
My second point relates to the powers of entry under Clause 1 (6). I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the county agricultural executive committees will give written notice, both to the owner and to the occupier, of an intention to enter on the land to survey it, prior to making a clearance order. Officials can and do enter on land without notice, provided that they have the occupier's consent. But surely this should be regarded as exceptional; as a general rule proper notice should be given, both as a matter of courtesy and in order to give those concerned the opportunity of being present when the survey is being made. The pressing needs of war time justified innumerable cases of entry without notice, but the war has been over for a considerable number of years, and it should be possible now to observe the ordinary rules of courtesy in such a matter.
My third point concerns Clause 1 (9). I hope that the Government will feel able to include the owners of forestry land as being representative interests to be consulted before an order is made. My last point is in regard to Clause 2 (1). I submit that unless this clause is administered with the utmost care an unreasonable financial burden will be imposed on the owner or occupier of
452
land—for example, the Minister could require an owner to fence in land which might already have been cleared of rabbits. That, I gather, is partly the intention of this clause. The very wide powers conferred by this clause might result in expenditure being incurred in fencing out rabbits which was out of all proportion to the possible benefits. It is to be hoped that the Government will see their way to amending this clause to ensure that only reasonable and practicable steps are imposed on an owner or occupier to those ends. As I see it, under this clause, if rabbits should have been cleared from a wood of any size, whether it be five acres, fifty acres or even a hundred acres, the Minister could require the owner to fence the whole of that woodland to keep rabbits from getting back into it. These seem to me to be unnecessarily wide powers.
Finally, I should be gratified if the noble Lord, in his reply, could give me some clarification on two points. First, will these clearance orders be made on the initiation of the county agricultural executive committee and this joint committee of representatives, or by one or other, or by someone else altogether? Secondly, is it intended that the orders should be made in perpetuity, or will they have a limited life? Frankly, I do not like the idea of an order of any sort being made without there being in view some date for its termination.
4.22 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, being of the opinion that, as time goes on, this country must depend more and more for its nourishment on food produced within its borders, I am in favour of the total extermination of the rabbit. And when I say that, I am, I admit, saying that I do not think this Bill goes far enough. I think you must go for the complete extermination of the rabbit or the measures will be ineffective. I am aware that there are places, particularly in Scotland, where rabbits can be safely kept under certain precautions. But we are always faced with this situation: that the people whose rabbits are exterminated, and who do not want them to be exterminated, will put down new rabbits and say that they have come in "from next door." When my father cleared every rabbit out of some 11,000 acres of land, the farmers put back the rabbits and then

453
tried to turn his keepers off, saying that they were their rabbits and not my father's. That is the kind of situation the Government will have to consider. In 1920, we calculated the damage caused by rabbits on old pasture—very fine, ancient pasture—and we came to the conclusion that it cost one-third of the rent. That did not represent the grass they ate, of which mention has been made in the debate to-day, but the grass and food which they contaminated, and which cattle afterwards would not eat.
But if the Government are to do what I want, and exterminate all the rabbits in this country, it must, I think, be done fairly. I am speaking only for Scotland. The rabbits in Scotland were forced upon the proprietors of land by the Central Government by Statute after Statute. You cannot ask the Muse of History the question "Why?" very often, and get an answer: and I cannot give your Lordships the reason for certain. I imagine, however, that it was this. In a country menaced every winter by starvation, the rabbit, the pigeon and the stockfish provided some chance of meat diet for the poor people in the country when the laird had his powdered beef which had been killed at Martinmas. That is the only reason I can suggest. The fact is that rabbits were introduced by the Government, Therefore, if you go for total extermination, you must be fair; you must compensate those people who to-day depend upon their rabbits, and have learned to depend upon them, for the losses which you are going to ask them to suffer. I think that that is a matter of common honesty, and I feel that it should be done. That is my criticism of the first Part of the Bill. While entirely in favour of it, I do not think that it goes far enough.
To turn for a moment to Part II, which deals with the gin trap, I have heard it said that with the gin trap it is impossible to exterminate rabbits. Nevertheless, with the gin trap my father exterminated rabbits on 11.000 acres—so much so that afterwards one never saw a rabbit in a day's shooting. That says something for the gin trap. I am perfectly prepared to admit that the gin trap is very cruel. I am not a judge of cruelty, and I cannot tell whether the gin trap is more cruel or less cruel than the snare. But anyone who has ever seen a snared rabbit will. I think, say that the snare is every bit as cruel as the
454
gin trap, and less effective in getting rid of the rabbit population. Yet people who attack the gin trap never touch on the snare: they never say a word about it. I have tried to think of a reason for this. Perhaps it would be improper for me to say that it is due to the fact that the man who uses the gin trap is destroying large numbers, and probably trying to exterminate rabbits altogether, whereas the man who uses the snare is generally trying to poach a rabbit for his dinner. Whether that: be so or not, if you attack the gin trap I think you ought equally to attack the snare. I know that it is said that there are humane snares. It is fifty years since I set such a snare, but in the interval I have never once seen a humane snare.
There is a point with regard to all these measures of destruction which I think should be remembered, and that is that, following the periodic campaigns against rabbits in very large districts of the country, the rabbit has very much changed his habits. Nowadays, especially with these mile winters, great numbers of rabbits never go into holes at all: they live in rough woodland areas, and they are quite happy. One seldom sees them do anything more than make a slight scrape with their claws. How you are going to get rid of those rabbits if you limit the ways in which they can be attacked I do not know. Personally, I think the only way to destroy them in those places would be to use gin traps and snares as safely as you can. There is another thing we have to remember: with all this blown wood in Scotland to-day, the above-ground haunts of rabbits have been largely multiplied, and next year we shall certainly see a much larger population of rabbits which never go inside a hole.
One of the real difficulties in getting rid of rabbits is that we have not enough people who are thoroughly well acquainted with the habits and the nature of the rabbit. It is unfortunate that social changes have led to a diminution of such people, because in trying to exterminate rabbits from any area the most important thing is to have somebody thoroughly good at his work. Anybody acquainted with the country knows that there is a vast difference between one rabbit trapper and another. One man will clear every rabbit off the ground, while another man will always leave some for next year, not

455
because he is unwilling but because he is unskilful. That is an important point. I conclude where I begin. I support this Bill, but I do not think it goes nearly far enough. I believe that the only way to deal with the rabbit is by total war. If we have total war against the rabbit, I am afraid that some cruelty must be wrapped up in it; but the sooner we get rid of the rabbits existing in this country, the less cruelty we shall have to inflict in doing so.
4.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADD1NGTON: My Lords, coming late in the debate one is apt to tread on ground covered by other noble Lords. Certainly the reason why the rabbit population has never been reduced in this country has been emphasised and I do not think it can be emphasised too strongly—that is, because there never has been a general will to reduce it. While some people have wanted to exterminate rabbits, other people wanted to breed them. Tenant farmers having equal rights with the landlord under the Ground Game Act, 1880, it is to their interest to let the rabbits out to trappers who, in their own interests again, kill only a proportion of the rabbits in order that they may have a breeding stock for the following year. In addition, farmers look to rabbits to get a small increase in their own incomes on the farms. It is common knowledge that this is the reason why rabbits do not show a continual reduction. Therefore, if we want to kill off our rabbits, the first thing to do is to stop commercial trapping and then take proper measures to kill the rabbits.
There has been a good deal of discussion about what is the best method of killing rabbits. I am certainly in agreement with those noble Lords who look on trapping as being not the best method. The noble Lord, Lord Archibald, has welcomed the increased subsidy for the gassing of rabbits. I am credibly informed, and it is my own experience, that gassing is not a good way of killing rabbits. When rabbits are gassed, they stay in their burrows and the dead bodies only invite vermin to come and eat them, and the vermin multiply. Added to this, the gassed rabbit is not a very palatable article of food and would not be popular with the housewife.
456
I would ask Lord Carrington's Department to study the Caldra method of long-netting rabbits. Articles on this method of taking rabbits have recently been published in Country Life, The Field and, I think, the Farmers' Weekly. All rabbits must come out to feed at night. It does not matter whether they are in dense woods or in thick undergrowth, they have to come out on to neighbouring land at night to feed, and that is when they can be caught in large numbers by the long net. I believe that particulars of this method have been sent to every agricultural executive committee in the country, and while it is probably a little expensive, astonishing results have been obtained. I happen to be a neighbour of the instigator of this method and know him personally, and he has told me that he has had a haul of as many as 100 rabbits out of one field with one pull with the net at night. That is a pretty good haul of rabbits on a farm. This is probably the most humane way in existence to-day of catching rabbits. I had the idea that we could abolish the gin trap and make some sort of long net service available for farmers who are troubled by rabbits eating their spring wheat. This service could be supplied through the agricultural executive committees, who could have someone who would go out and net the rabbits off the fields. The whole operation could be done humanely in one night.
As we know, the gin trap is a peculiarly outmoded and barbarous means of killing rabbits. Yet in certain cases it may be necessary to use it to clear some of the areas which are to be defined under Clause 1 of the Bill. For that reason, I would not ask for the immediate abolition of the gin trap, much as I and other noble Lords would like to see it go. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whether he could fix a date, say a year ahead—it might have to be two years ahead, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, proposed in his Spring Traps Bill last year—on which it could be abolished, and perhaps in the meantime licences for clearing certain areas could be given to bona fide trappers who are killing the rabbits to get them off the land in order to save our crops and young trees; but the trap should not be tolerated any longer for commercial trapping. By this means, I think that we should begin to abolish progressively

457
what everybody has wanted to see abolished for a long time. I think that would be making a compromise which would be fair to all sides.
4.40 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I think there is one thing upon which everyone will agree now—that is, that if there is to be anything like the extermination of rabbits, it will never be done except by some kind of central or national authority, working, it may be, through properly decentralised agencies. What other authority except the Ministry of Agriculture could possibly do it? Therefore, I admit at once that this Bill is not only desirable but essential. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that it does not go nearly far enough, though possibly I do not agree with the direction in which he wants to go beyond this Bill. The noble Lord said—and I entirely agree—that nothing less than total war against rabbits is now essential.
I should like to ask one or two questions about this Bill. Can the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill tell us in what way the powers conferred under Clause 1 are to be used? Other noble Lords have already asked whether these powers will be used, because, frankly, we are not particularly impressed with the degree to which the powers under the 1947 Act have been used in England, and those under the 1948 Act in Scotland. The record is not a very good one in the use to which those powers have been put. How will a rabbit clearance order be enforced? I can find nothing in the Bill about any penalty for non-enforcement, or anything about default powers; but it may be that they are hidden away in the 1947 Act, and that we must refer to that Act in order to find an answer. What will happen if the occupier fails to carry out an order? Will he be punished under Section 100 of the 1947 Act, or by some other means?
Then again, it is not always easy to find out who is the occupier of certain land. Who is the occupier of common land? There are a great number of rabbits on common land, and I cannot find anything in the Bill which provides an answer to that question. I hope that the Minister will do what the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, asked him to
458
do—namely, "chase up" all the Government Departments which are at fault in allowing rabbits to spread over their land. Other bodies have been mentioned to-day, but I would put at the top of the black list the War Office, who have a tremendous area of land nowadays. When I say, at home: "Why does not So-and-so clear the rabbits off his land?" quite often the answer is, "Well, look at the War Office, and the number of rabbits they have on their land." It must be admitted at once that in many cases War Office land is waste land and rather unproductive agriculturally. Nevertheless, that does not help towards a solution of the rabbit problem. I would urge the Ministry of Agriculture to see that all the other Ministries toe the line in this matter in the same way as individual owners will, rightly, be expected to do.
I should now like to say a word or two on the finance of this business. I note that under Clause 3 of the Bill the Treasury may consent to make a grant towards the expense of rabbit clearance. But equally, of course, they may not consent. That is a matter which I feel needs a little further thought. Where is the money to come from if the Treasury take an unfavourable view? I contend that this is a matter where the farmer or occupier deserves some kind of subsidy, at, any rate in some cases and in some places. After all, a great many aspects of farming are now subsidised, and I see no reason why rabbit clearance should not also be subsidised. In this connection, I would plead with the Minister to reduce the charges which he now makes for the work of the agricultural executive committees in clearing rabbits. In my county, if I go to the agricultural executive committee and ask for their help in clearing rabbits, as I have done, I am charged £12 a week for every man; and when I protest. I am told that the department has got to be made to pay, or, at any rate, to make both ends meet. We all know that the man himself does not get £12 a week; presumably the balance goes to meet overhead expenses. That will never do. I believe that if this problem is to be taken seriously, that sort of charge must be altered, and that farmers and occupiers cannot be expected to pay all the overheads of the Ministry of Agriculture in order to get rabbits cleared from their land. It is not at all encouraging to

459
people to go to the Ministry and ask for their help if they are to be charged £12 a week for the work of every man.
Some words have already been said about sporting rights. I am not in the least against sporting or shooting rights, or the owners thereof. But let there he no mistake about this: that there is some conflict here between rabbit clearing and sporting rights. It is not a conflict that can never be resolved: on the contrary, I think that it may be over-estimated. But do not let us pretend that there is no conflict. If the owner of the sporting rights takes the proper and necessary steps to clear his land of rabbits, there will not be any trouble, because a rabbit clearance order will not be made in respect of that land. It is only if the sporting owner harbours too many rabbits on his land, which a few may do—and in France I believe they do it to a great extent—that there will be a clash of interests. I agree with the noble Lord opposite who says that if there is a clash of interests, then the case of rabbit clearance must be paramount, and in that respect the shooting rights must suffer. I would urge that shooting, which is an excellent way of killing rabbits, and much less inhumane than trapping, should not be discouraged.
I should like to ask this question: Why is it that, though it is legal in England for the owner of land to shoot rabbits at night, it is illegal in Scotland? I cannot understand how both of those positions are right. I would suggest that my noble Scottish friends should be released from the prohibition against the owner of land, or of sporting rights, being forbidden to shoot rabbits at night. We have just heard from a Scottish noble Lord that they come out at night to feed, and that shooting rabbits at night is one of the most effective ways of getting rid of them. I can understand why tenants might be prohibited, but I cannot understand why an owner should be prohibited from shooting rabbits on his own land at night.
LORD SALTOUN: It is very dangerous.
LORD MERTHYR: If it is dangerous in Scotland, then it is also dangerous in England. I do not think the Scottish marksmen are so inferior to the English as all that.
460
I must say a few words on the subject of rabbit farming. It has been said before, but it cannot be over-emphasised, that the present system of using traps is a proved failure. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is here, because we had some difference of opinion about this matter on the last debate. I say that the present system, quite manifestly, increases the population of rabbits. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said this afternoon that the rabbit population was getting the upper hand; but unlike his colleague. the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, he has not yet seen the light as to why it is getting the upper hand. I know perfectly well that the rabbit population is getting the upper hand. In my own county, where there are swarms of trappers, and have been for the last thirty years, the number of rabbits, according to statistics published, is going up, not every year, but regularly. Something like 1,750,000 rabbits are to-day exported by rail alone in a small county. The reason why the rabbit population is going up is because traps are being used in the present way for rabbit farming. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, in this matter. It will soon become clear that rabbit farming must be stopped.
One point that has not been mentioned this afternoon, I think, is this. One of the reasons why rabbit farming increases the number of rabbits is that it is not practised in the summer. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that if traps were used in the way his father used them they would exterminate rabbits. But the whole point is that the commercial rabbit trapper is not as sensible as the noble Lord's father. He does not use his traps to exterminate rabbits. He knows perfectly well that if he did he would exterminate his livelihood. If a trap is sensibly used it could kill any number of rabbits. I say once again that the way in which the traps are now being used will not diminish the population of rabbits but will increase them.
Another point which I do not think has been much touched upon is this. An enormous amount could be done in this matter if more attention was paid to the filling up of rabbit holes, the clearance of scrub and the getting rid of rabbit warrens. If the ordinary tenant farmer were to fill up the holes on his land, I believe there would be a great improvement.

461
Then I think several things should be forbidden. First of all, the sale of wild rabbits should be forbidden. Your Lordships may think at first sight that that is a little unnecessary, but I want to quote from an advertisement which appeared in the Carmarthen Journal in the middle of last April. This, I believe, would interest the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, if he were here. The advertisement said:
"Wanted, One dozen live wild rabbits for re-stocking; price and particulars.…"
Then follows the name and address of the farmer. That is what we are up against. There is a man—and it bears out what the noble Lord said—who is deliberately trying to re-stock his land with wild rabbits in order to keep up the rabbit population. If that is not what he is trying to do, I do not know what it can mean. I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to it, because that is what the Ministry of Agriculture are up against. Somehow or other the keeping of rabbits must be made unremunerative.
Another illuminating thing is the way in which rabbits are at present being used in the West Country and in Wales as a means of helping the farmer's livelihood and enabling him to pay his rent. I have permission from the people concerned to read this, and if your Lordships will also give me permission I should like to read this extract from a letter from a land agent in the West Country to his principal in London. It says:
"One reason why the tenant was prepared to increase the rent very considerably was that he lets the rabbit catching for a considerable sum of money. I do not know the exact figure, but probably £30 or £40. This applies to the rabbits caught on the Warren.…"
He goes on to say:
"He is definitely going to say that if the rabbits are exterminated by means of gassing then he is not going to get his rent from the rabbit catcher, and will not be able to pay us as much rent. It is a strange way of looking at it."
It is indeed a strange way of looking at the question, but we have to realise that it is looked at to-day in that way by hundreds of people in this country. Those are the people whom I accuse of rabbit farming.
I will go further and say that before we succeed in this total war of extinction against rabbits we shall have to prohibit
462
not only the sale of wild rabbits but the sale of dead rabbits generally, because only by that means can you get rid of the incentive to keep rabbits. Incidentally, it might be mentioned that if there should be an outbreak of myxomatosis—with which I think the Government are dealing at present in entirely the correct way—it would have a strong effect on this question because, if I anticipate rightly, the people in the country would not buy rabbits for food. They may he quite, wrong in their fear, but they will nevertheless have a fear of rabbits for food and will not buy them. It will be interesting to see what effect that has upon the rabbit population. I believe effect may be just the opposite to what is forecast, and that there may be an improvement in the numbers rather than the reverse.
We must at any rate provide an incentive to people not to have rabbits. I would urge that landowners can help in this matter: they can prevent their tenants from selling the right to trap rabbits, and, in my opinion, they can tell their tenants that it is illegal to do so. Under the Ground Game Act, 1880, tenants are given certain rights to kill rabbits and to pay for killing rabbits, but they are given no right to sell rabbits or to sell the right to kill rabbits. Therefore I say that a landowner can stop his tenant from selling rabbits to trappers, and that if he did stop his tenant from doing so he would vastly improve the position.
I should like to say a few words with regard to Part II of the Bill. In the last debate on the subject in this House the noble Earl the Postmaster General said (OFFICIAL RFPORT, Vol. 174, col. 603):
"What really is the position arising out of this debate? Has not one thing become absolutely clear? Not a single speech in your Lordships' House to-day has been devoted to the question of whether or not the gin trap shall go. There has been an absolutely unanimous expression by all speakers of the view that the gin trap must and shall go. The only question raised in the discussion has been when it shall go."
From that point where we left off last time, I should like to take up the position again to-day. I agree that this Bill does not go far enough. After all, all that is done in Clause 8 is to take power to do four years hence what could be done to-day. Is that really a great concession? I do not think it will meet the present

463
public opinion on this matter, and I agree with those noble Lords who have said that before that date, rather than after, is the time when gin traps should be prohibited. Like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I am one of those who say that no trap is necessary. I am firmly convinced that he is right when he said that it is not only a question of abolishing the gin trap. but that no trap at all is necessary.
Rabbit traps are the lazy man's way of catching rabbits. I have tested this and have never allowed a trap on land in my occupation. I mention that merely as some justification for making the statement I have just made. I would concede that the Imbra trap and the Sawyer trap (and here I would say that it is possible that the Sawyer trap is just as efficient as the Imbra) are not at present as efficient as the gin, although the difference between them is nothing like so great as is made out—not as efficient, that is, in catching rabbits, but they are much more efficient in killing rabbits than the gin trap ever was. As one noble Lord has already said, the trappers do not want to kill the rabbits too quickly, and that is why they prefer the gin, because the gins keep the rabbits alive and fresh for the market. That accounts largely for the prejudice against the Imbra and Sawyer traps which, although they are not perfect, do at least kill the rabbits when they catch them. I entirely agree with other noble Lords who have said that necessity is the mother of invention, and that if the gin were abolished to-day we should very soon have an efficient humane trap on the market. The commercial trapper, against whom I have no enmity whatever, is a perfectly respectable citizen. He does not want the gin trap abolished. He does not want a humane trap—and very few of these commercial trappers would have the courage to say that they did—because all he wants is a trap which catches rabbits and catches them alive; and we have to realise that fact. Therefore, I hope that Part II of this Bill will be amended in some way, as several noble Lords have asked this afternoon.
Finally, I would come back to the main question: however efficient a trap is put on the market, let us all remember that the agricultural problem
464
will remain untouched; and that problem, as well as the problem of humanity, must be tackled at once. Even if a trap is 100 per cent. efficient, if it is used in the way in which it is now being used the rabbit population will not be diminished by one. Therefore, I come back to this point: that all that is in Part I of this Bill is necessary and is going to be necessary; and this is not going to be the last Bill on the subject of rabbit destruction before this enormous agricultural problem is solved.
5.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not propose to occupy more than a few moments of your time with the consideration of one or two points with which I wish to deal. We on this side of the House welcome the Bill, and have no desire but to do everything we can in Committee to make it a better Bill. I have listened carefully to practically the whole of the debate this afternoon, and with most of the speakers I have at least some point of agreement. It seems to me that the Minister is going to have a difficult task in trying to match the suggestions together, but that is the kind of conciliatory task which he is quite capable of carrying out.
If I may mention a few specific points drawn from my own very small experience, I would say, first of all, that no one could consider that my noble friend Lord Archibald over-estimated the damage which is done by rabbits. He was, I thought, very mild in his estimate, and obviously did not wish to overstate his case. I am glad that he put his case as he did. I hope the Minister will pay some attention to the fact that much land which had never been cultivated before the war, but which was sometimes taken up and cultivated by the Ministry, or on their behalf, in odd parcels, is to-day either being released altogether or is being cultivated by new tenants who are up against all the other pieces of land which have not been under cultivation. Mention has been made of scrub and such things, and this is referred to in, I think, Clause 2. I sincerely hope that the Government will do something about the question of who is liable for the clearance of rabbits in such places. I can, perhaps, speak rather freely in this matter. There are some rented plots quite away from my homestead—a seaside place—which are full of cover for rabbits and,

465
indeed, infested with rabbits. I think that last year I lost the best part of an acre of barley in a comparatively small field. I have no power to enter on that land or any right to do anything about this problem. I ought not to be asked to put up a fence against it if it: is going to be such a source of future trouble and concern. I think something ought to be done about that.
I want to stress the point made by my noble friends Lord Listowel and Lord Archibald about Part II of the Bill. I hope that some definite date can be fixed. I must say that Lord Archibald's argument concerning Clause 8 sounded very convincing to me. I am in agreement also with a point made in Lord Stonehaven's speech. I cannot see way the Ministry should not fix a very early date (I say this in spite of what Lord Merthyr said) for prohibiting the manufacture of gin traps. Let us get on with more rapid production, in quantity and efficiency, of the humane type of trap. The only other point I wish to make is in regard to certain powers taken by the Ministry. I hope that, where owners cannot be traced (and that does still happen: I do not know whether the Minister remembers our experiences in the early part of the war, where owners could not be traced), it may be possible to lay the duty on the local authority. With these few remarks I must say that we welcome this Bill. We want it to go a little further in the direction I have mentioned, and we shall be glad to support it.
5.6 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which you have received this Bill. We shall be fortified by the speeches noble Lords have made to-day. But before I come to deal with the comments which have been made on the Bill, in particular those relating to the gin trap, I should like to try to answer some of the questions which have been put to me. First, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—and I thank him and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, for blessing this Bill with the seal of the official Opposition—asked me whether we seriously intended to use the powers provided for under Clause 1. I can give the noble Earl that assurance wholeheartedly. We should not have bothered to introduce a Bill with those powers if
466
we had no intention of using them. We most certainly shall use them. The noble Earl also asked me when the Committee at present inquiring into myxomatosis is going to report. I gave him the answer: "It will report in March." It will have to do so some time before the Spring, at any rate, because in the Spring there is much more insect life about and the insects act as vectors which spread the disease. Although I cannot give any definite date when the Report will be published—this Committee is a Standing Committee—I can say that the Government will announce their views on the subject.
Lord Stonehaven asked me whether Clause 1 of this Bill would apply to a. public authority. My answer is that it does; and I would say that the Transport Commission have been particularly helpful about the destruction of rabbits. They have carried out some interesting experiments which have been of very great use on the subject of rabbits in railway embankments. We are grateful to them for being so helpful. Lord St. Aldwyn queried the provision of the Bill which enables the Minister to allow the occupier of land to ask his friends to go out with him and shoot rabbits. As I said earlier, I do not think that shooting is the normal way in which rabbits will be killed. But I can say that, if the obligation is placed on the occupier, it is only fair that he should be given the means of carrying out that obligation. The noble Earl will see that the Minister can give consent only if the owner, in his turn, has unreasonably withheld his consent. But I think my right honourable friend the Minister has quite an open mind, and I am prepared to have conversations with the noble Earl before the next stage, and put forward an Amendment agreeable to both of us.
The noble Earl also asked me about Clause 1 (6), regarding powers of entry. This provision, of course, does not in any way widen the scope of powers of entry; it merely repeats Section 106 of the 1947 Act. As the noble Earl knows, the committee are obliged to give notice when they are about to visit a farmer.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: To the occupier only, that is.
LORD CARRINGTON: I thought that that was what the noble Earl meant.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I did say "the owner".
LORD CARRINGTON: They are obliged to give notice to the occupier.
The noble Earl also asked me whether or not the owners of woods would be consulted before these clearance schemes were laid down. I think that will need a small Amendment to the Bill, which I shall be glad to move on the Committee stage, because I think it proper that that should be done. He rather questioned, too, whether or not it was necessary to go as far as he thinks we have done in Clause 2 (1), which might possibly require an owner to fence in a large area of land. As I also said in my opening remarks, that is not the intention of the clause. I think this is really a drafting point; it is difficult to think of words which would meet his point adequately. Here, again, however, if we can find words, we shall be only too happy to do what we can on Committee stage. As regards these clearance schemes, he asked me how long they would continue. They will go on for ever, so to speak, because the object is to clear the rabbits out for all time, and the more successful an occupier is in clearing out the rabbits, the less he will have to do in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, asked me the same question as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Of course, these powers will be used—I can give that assurance. The penalties for failing to observe the directions are the same penalties as those to be found in Section 100 of the Agriculture Act, and they are applied under Clause 1 (7). The noble Lord also asked me why there was a difference between England and Scotland. The position at the moment is that night shooting of rabbits is forbidden in Scotland but allowed in England and Wales. We are not doing anything to alter that. The reason for that is that a different interpretation of the Ground Game Act of 1880 was given in the courts of Scotland from the interpretation made in the courts of England, and we do not intend to do anything about that.
The main debate has been about the gin trap. There are those who want to see an early end to the rabbit problem, and those whose main concern is to see the end of the gin trap, by which, as your Lordships know, millions of rabbits are destroyed every year. I hope I have made
468
it plain, although I do not think that I convinced the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the Government are by no means out of sympathy with those who want to abolish the pain and suffering which the gin trap causes. Indeed, if the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will recall the debate on the Bill which he initiated some two years ago, he will remember that I gave an assurance then. This is what I said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 174, Col. 569):
"When we are satisfied that we have an adequate, efficient and humane alternative to the gin trap, and when the state of the legislative programme permits, then the Government will consider introducing a Bill on the lines I have indicated."
We have done rather more than I said on that occasion we would do, because, although we are not satisfied that at the moment we have
"an adequate, efficient, and humane alternative to the gin trap,"
we are introducing legislation on this subject.
I was not quite sure where the Labour Party stood on this matter. I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, swerved a bit, and I thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, wobbled distinctly, because in the debate two years ago the noble Earl, Lord Listowel said—I hope that he will forgive me for quoting his words back at him: they appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 174, Col. 574:
"Large numbers of land owners, farmers and workers, all use these traps;"—
that is, gin traps—
"there are over 3 million traps of this kind in use at present in the farms and cottages of our countryside. To deprive these people of these traps before we can provide them with an effective substitute would undoubtedly lead to an increase in the rabbit population and to a corresponding decrease in food production."
He then went on a little later:
"I am satisfied with the assurance given by Lord Carrington that he and his colleagues will make an honest effort to introduce a Bill as soon as an equally effective trap has been found. I do hope that that assurance will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Elton.…"
I very much hope that the noble Earl has not changed his mind in that short time.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I have not. I agree with the noble Lord opposite that that was the view I took at that time. I am not conscious that anything I have said this afternoon is inconsistent with that view. I do not think the noble Lord

469
is suggesting that it is, but I should be prepared to defend my position if he suggested that I had said anything which conflicted with the view which I then expressed.
LORD ELTOIN: May I ask the noble Earl, did he not express regret that this Bill does not include an actual date for the abolition?
LORD SALTOUN: The question arises as to whether the Government are prepared to sacrifice the gin trap or the rabbit. May I hope that they will sacrifice the rabbit, because I want to see rabbits exterminated.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am coming to that.
THE EARL OF LTSTOWEL: I did express regret. I did say that I thought that such a date could only be fixed when a satisfactory alternative trap was available in sufficient numbers, and so on, for the general public. My view about the alternative trap—I may be entirely wrong—is that there is a trap at the moment, at any rate in design, which is an effective substitute for the gin trap. I thought that that was what I said.
LORD CARRINGTON: No, I am sorry that I misunderstood the noble Earl. At any rate, he has reassured me about his own feelings on the subject. He agrees with Her Majesty's Government and with me that, until such time as we have an effective substitute for the gin trap, it would he wrong to ban it. I hope he will convince the noble Viscount sitting next to him, because that is not what he said in his speech.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We meet in this House fur the purpose of exchanging views in an open debate, and as the debate goes on we hope we teach each other things. I started from the point where the Minister in charge of the Bill had said something, not specific, about the fact that one manufacturer considered that now we had something which was both economic and efficient. I do not want to twist the words of the Minister we will look at them in Hansard in the morning, and see how far we disagree. Then subsequently we learned something of the life of the gin trap. What is the expected life? We are debating two years after my noble friend made his first
470
specific statement. Barring the use of tide gin trap does not matter at all; I am proposing the prohibition of its manufacture. Those in use will last for three or four years and no more, and therefore banning the gin trap would stimulate the production of the substitute.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his explanation of his point of view. I should not like it to be thought that I had said anything of the kind about a new trap being available now. I will read out what I did say
"I am able to tell your Lordships that ore of the most experienced manufacturers of gin traps in this country has for several years been engaged in the development of a completely new design for a humane trap which he fees may stand a chance of wing so perfected as to compete with gin traps on level terms."
I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination I could be taken as saying that we had found an effective alternative.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: That is a fairly optimistic estimate.
LORD CARRINGTON: We can all be optimistic until the result is arrived at. The point is that the Government, in their responsibility to the public, have to try to reconcile both these points of view—the killing of the rabbits and the abolition of the gin trap. This Bill may not meet with the full approval of extremists in either camp, but it should commend itself to the vast majority who, like the Government, want to see an end to the rabbits and the gin trap but realise that this objective must be approached in a realistic way, with due regard to the hard facts of country life and economy and the practical considerations involved. I have tried hard, in my earlier speech to your Lordships, to bring home not only to those who live in towns but to land owners and farmers as well, the extent of the damage caused by wild rabbits to crops and woodlands. The more effort we put into increasing our food production the greater the struggle against these pests becomes. We cannot go on indefinitely expending vast sums of money and energy on producing more and more crops for rabbits to eat.
With regard to the total amount of damage, the noble Lord. Lord Archibald, suggested that rabbits caused about £20

471
million worth of damage a year. I think he puts his estimate rather low. I should say that it is much more like £50 million a year—and I do not think that even that figure is an exaggeration of the damage done by rabbits, when it is realised that on wheat alone tests have established that the equal of the produce of 130,000 acres of over £5 million in value is destroyed by rabbits in one year. There is, quite rightly, an increasing clamour for this damage to be stopped, and the Government, who are responsible for food production, could not expose the country to the risk of increasing that loss by abolishing the gin trap before a suitable substitute was available; and still less by abolishing trapping altogether.
Those who advance these extreme measures (and I say that with the greatest respect) have not the responsibility that the Government carry. It has been claimed by several noble Lords today that trapping is not necessary to keep down rabbits—that other methods will do just as well. I am not so sure about that, but even if it were so, I do not think that that really is the point. The fact is that at the present time an enormous number of rabbits are killed with gin traps, and if we prohibited this method of killing them now, there would be no way of ensuring that rabbits would continue to be killed at the same rate by other methods. The Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals, to which I referred earlier this afternoon, went fully into this question and they did not recommend that trapping should be abolished. I do not know what really is the view of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. Does he think that trapping should be abolished, however effective and humane a destructive weapon it may be?
LORD MERTHYR: I would say that it should be abolished progressively, because, as I have said so often, the way in which it is now being used does not diminish, but increases, the number of rabbits. The emphasis is on the words "in the way in which it is now being used." If it were abolished progressively, and not all at once, I believe it could be done successfully.
LORD CARRINGTON: With great respect, that is not the question I asked
472
the noble Lord. I asked him whether he thought trapping should be abolished, and he said that he thought commercial trapping should be abolished.
LORD ELTON: As the noble Lord is on this question, perhaps I might ask him what is his attitude to the leaflet published by his own Department, containing an article by Dr. Smith, which says that trapping is the wrong method to use for getting rid of rabbits?
LORD CARRINGTON: In certain circumstances, trapping may be the wrong method to use for getting rid of rabbits, but I think there are places where trapping is necessary in order to get rid of them. But that is not the point. All I am saying is that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, have suggested that we ought to stop commercial trapping—which I suppose means trapping animals for money. But a farmer who keeps down his rabbits by trapping is, I should have thought, perfectly entitled to the money he can get for them; and the professional trapper is merely doing the farmer's work for him. I dare say there are some people who deliberately leave some rabbits behind to make sure that there will be another crop next year. But it is extremely difficult to single out those people from anybody else. I hope that my noble friend behind me is not suggesting that there should be a Ministry inspector following every trapper around. We are told that what is wanted is the progressive abolition of the gin trap. We agree with that, and our proposals are designed to secure the progressive displacement of gin traps as others capable of taking their place become available. But as I said earlier on, in answer to a Question before this debate started, we do not seem yet to have found a trap that is the equivalent of the gin in catching efficiency, weight, price and other qualities. The Imbra trap, to which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred, is at present under tests with county agricultural executive committees, but I am afraid that results so far received are not conclusive, and I am not yet able to say whether this or any other trap would qualify for approval by the Minister.
This question of how we should decide whether or not a trap qualifies for approval is one to which we have been giving

473
some thought, and we feel that there would be advantage in getting the traps tried out by farmers, landowners, game keepers and the like, so that we may have the views of those people who will be using them on the ground. We are arranging, through the representative organisations, for this to be done in the case of the Imbra and other traps, so that we can get representative views as to their merits. We think that, now that this Bill has been introduced, the tendency will be for more and more humane traps to be put on the market and, if they are humane and efficient, and otherwise acceptable, for them to be purchased to replace gins as they wear out. In that way there should be a progressive replacement of the gin. I should point out that it is not necessary for the Minister to set a date for the prohibition of the gin before he approves alternative traps to take its place. He can do that as soon as he is satisfied that suitable and acceptable alternatives are to be found.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
5.26 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Home, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

HOUSING FOR EX-REGULAR SERVICE MEN
5.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the housing difficulties confronting married Regular Service men on their leaving the Service and having to quit married quarters; whether they are satisfied that housing authorities are acquainted with, and are applying, the
474
provisions of Circular No. 8/52 of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government; whether the Service authorities inform these men in good time of the steps they should take to secure places on local authorities' housing lists; and what further action Her Majesty's Government are contemplating to relieve the anxieties of this class of Service man. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in asking the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper there is no need for me to make a long speech, because the main headings on which I am asking for assurances and information are set out in the Question. I should, however, like to spend a few minutes in explaining the situation in connection with this subject as I see it, and my reason for raising it. That reason becomes obvious when one reads the recent statements on Defence or on the Services, all of which have complained of difficulty in regard to, and pointed out the need for, an increase in the Regular manpower of the Forces.
Numerous schemes have been introduced in the Services to encourage men to make the Services their life career, or at any rate to serve for a long period. The Memorandum accompanying the Army Estimates last year said:
"We are having more and more difficulty in finding long-service warrant officers and senior non-commissioned officers. We want men to stay in the Army and are trying hard to improve conditions of service so that they do stay."
In another section of the same Memorandum the Secretary of State says:
"There has been some tendency …for Regular married non-commissioned officers to leave the Army. We are doing everything possible to reduce and limit the cause of this trend."
My Lords, I ask: are the Services in fact doing everything they can to reduce the disabilities under which some of these men are serving?
May I say that if I speak of "soldiers" I hope it will not be taken to mean that conditions are not the same in the other two Services? I have no first-hand knowledge of conditions in the Royal Air Force and the Navy, but I can speak from some experience of the Army; and some up-to-date contacts with soldiers have convinced me that there are a number of cases of great hardship where senior soldiers of long service are subjected to quite needless anxiety and worry at the

475
close of their service. I have in mind in particular three current cases of soldiers with an aggregate length of service of sixty years, living in married quarters with their families—their wives and a total number of twelve children. Of these three cases, two have already been taken to court by the Army authorities, and eviction orders have been made against them. It is only by the extreme forbearance and patience of the Army authorities that those families are still occupying married quarters. However, they have this hanging over their heads—that they may be evicted at any time at a week's notice, and that they will then be cast on the civilian housing world which, as we all know, is a very difficult one.
The problem has been recognised by Governments for a number of years. In 1945, the Ministry of Health issued Circular No. 109, which stated, among other things, that serving officers and men are recommended by the Service authorities to apply to the local authority for the area in which they wish to reside, or intend to take up employment, after discharge, giving particulars of the size of their families and of their present accommodation. And local authorities were asked to consider the claims of such applicants as though they were local residents. Two years ago, in January, 1952, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government issued a circular on similar lines pointing out the difficulties. This circular stated:
"Many of these serving men have no established association with any particular district. If, therefore, a rigid residential qualification is imposed by the local authority for the area in which they wish to settle after discharge they would, because of their service, be prejudiced in their application for housing accommodation. The Minister is confident that this is a position which local authorities will be anxious to avoid and that they will agree that these applicants should be given equal priority with others for consideration on the basis of relative housing need."
That was the situation which these circulars were designed to remedy.
Before going further, I should perhaps say that this applies only to soldiers who are not in a position to buy their own houses. A number of soldiers, no doubt, are in a position to do so, and for them the prospect of return to civil life is comparatively easy. But in the case of those who have to depend on local housing
476
authorities for their future homes, what happens? I am quite sure that the local authorities—certainly in some cases—give all possible weight to these circulars. They have them in mind, and they do the best they can for the soldiers and their families. But what can they do if a soldier applies to them only within a short time of his discharge? They receive a soldier's application for housing and they put him on the housing list. They cannot give the soldier absolute priority—and, in fact, they are not asked to do so—over civilians on the housing list; because, obviously, there are civilians living under conditions of great hardship. All that the Ministry asked was that the soldier should be given
"equal priority with others for consideration on the basis of relative housing need."
The local authority cannot straight away allot the soldier a house; that stands to reason, when they have long waiting lists. So what happens? Time goes on and the soldier is discharged, the Army require his quarters for other soldiers, and, after warnings, the soldier is taken to court—where, incidentally, he will probably have to pay the costs amounting to a few guineas—and at the court an eviction order is made against him, with a certain number of weeks' notice. From then on that man and his family live in a state of anxiety which no one would wish a soldier or anyone else to suffer unnecessarily.
As I have said, the Army authorities, I am sure, exercise great patience and do not proceed to eviction for a considerable number of months, I believe, after a soldier's discharge. But, sooner or later, they will have to evict him. Then the onus is on the local authority, because the family are homeless, and they are accommodated in one of two ways. If they are lucky, they may go to what is known as a "halfway house," where the family are together, it is true, but in very unsatisfactory conditions, with communal feeding and living rooms—conditions in which it is impossible to make a home. If they are not accommodated in the "halfway house," the wife and children may be sent to an institution and the husband may have to find lodgings for himself. In either case, the home is broken up and the family have to start their career in civil life under the worst possible conditions. There is no other way, so long

477
as soldiers cannot give long enough notice to the housing authorities to earn points for hardship to qualify them to take their place at the top of the housing lists.
And there is another small worry that faces soldiers. All their Service lives they have lived in Government quarters with Government furniture. Suddenly they have to go to civil life. They have to equip their new homes, and it is entirely beyond the means of most of them to do so. But there are provisions, of which most local authorities know, by which people can borrow money to equip their homes, and I wonder whether soldiers are told about those provisions. The responsibility for housing these people is a dual one: it rests on the local authorities and on the Service authorities. If the Service authorities do not do their job, the local housing authorities are helpless, and they cannot do what they should be able to do for these families. I should like to know that the Army authorities have this matter in mind, and that they regard it as at least as important as finding a man employment when he leaves the Service. Some years ago we heard a great deal about resettlement of Regular Service people, and I believe that a great deal is done to help them find employment. But it is at least as important that they should be helped to find houses when they transfer to civil life. Discharge at the end of a long period of Service is always a painful business. A soldier who has lived within the four walls of Service administration and regulations suddenly has to fend for himself and go out into the competitive world. It is bound to be difficult. Surely the Service authorities must do everything they can to ease this transition of the men to civil life.
I would ask your Lordships to think of the effect on younger soldiers when they see their seniors who are coming to the end of their service suffering this totally needless anxiety—dispersion of their homes, interference with their children's schooling, and so on. I maintain that all this is because the Service authorities do not give to the soldier in sufficient time information of what he must do in order to get on a housing list The soldier is not helped and given the advice he deserves. I hope the Government will be able to assure me that they do regard this matter seriously, and that it will be brought constantly to the atten-
478
tion of the soldier that he must give his name in several years, before his discharge in order to get the chance of a house.
5.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT GOSCFIEN: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. I think this is a very important question. As the noble Earl opposite said, it divides itself into two parts: what the Army can do to help, and what the civilian, authorities can do. I understand that there are still in the Army what used to be called vocational courses for men to learn a new trade, and I think that in every unit—this may be done already in some units—lectures should be given to soldiers quite a long time before they leave on what they should do about putting their names down on housing lists. I think that these lectures should be given particularly to those men who have been abroad for some time, and they should deal not only with the question of housing, but also with social affairs, which may have changed while the men have been abroad. Many of them have been abroad for a very long time, and new civilian rules and regulations have been brought out; and when they get home they want to know what they are all about.
As the noble Earl said, if men in the Services are worried about the future of their homes and families, their morale and efficiency are bound to deteriorate. They will be looking over their shoulders all the time, and thinking more about the future than about doing their jobs. That is one thing we want to avoid. It also may have an ill-effect on other soldiers who are thinking of staying on for a further term of service. These men may say to themselves that it would be better to get out now and not wait until they become older, because then it would be all the more difficult for them. That is another thing we want to avoid. The question of hostels, to which the noble Earl has referred, is also a difficult one. I have personal experience of this matter, and I know how difficult they are to run. Soldiers get married in the various countries in which they have been serving, and we get wives from all parts of the world coining into these hostels and living together. It is hardly a question of "Welcome home" if they have to start their civilian lives again in hostels.
5.45 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: My Lords, I can certainly assure the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, that Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the housing difficulties to which he has drawn attention in his Question. These are due partly to the shortage of houses which, though much alleviated, still persists, especially in certain areas, and partly to the special position of the Service man on account of the conditions under which he is serving. I can also assure your Lordships that local housing authorities are acquainted with the circular of January 31, 1952, issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, to which my noble friend refers. But this circular, which asks local authorities to give ex-Service men equal priority with other applicants on the basis of relative housing need, can only recommend to the authorities vested by Statute with the management of housing matters that they should give all possible consideration to the special difficulties in which Service men and their dependants are placed in seeking housing accommodation
Her Majesty's Government have no reason to think that this advice is not generally followed by local authorities in considering individual applications. If, however, any council appears not to be carrying out these recommendations, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is always willing to use his powers of persuasion, and I am sure that in the vast majority of cases the local authority concerned will be ready to reconsider their attitude. The Service authorities publish information from time to time about the steps which it is necessary to take to secure places on local authorities' housing lists. I will read later a copy of a notice exhibited on Army notice boards, which explains to the Service man how he should make his application.
Her Majesty's Government will always consider sympathetically any special steps open to them to improve the position generally, but if my noble friend has any cases in mind where local authorities appear to be disregarding their obligation to married Regular Service men in their areas, I shall be glad if he will send full particulars to Mr. Macmillan, at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who, as I have already said, will
480
be pleased to examine them in consultation with the local authorities concerned.
That is the official answer, my Lords. I am glad that we have had a short debate to-day because I am just as keen as, if not keener than, anybody else to see that our Regular soldiers, sailors, and airmen are properly provided with houses when they leave the Services. The trouble, of course, is that there are still not enough houses. That is why the present Government are building them so energetically. We hope that this will be a problem which will disappear. It has not disappeared yet, though, to put your minds at rest, a good deal is being done. As I have said, we have no powers over local authorities and do not wish to have them. What we ask for is fair and equal treatment between the ex-Service man and his civilian brother. I think local authorities will be satisfied with our arrangements, but some useful suggestions have been made about ensuring that serving soldiers know what to do early enough, so that they get their names on to a housing list.
I do not want to detain your Lordships but I should like to read out a notice which is pinned up in canteens, barrack rooms and elsewhere, and we can only hope that Service men read it. But, happy-go-lucky fellows, some of them probably do not take the trouble to read it. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, made a good point when he said that we should give lectures to the men and make certain that, though they do not read this notice, the information it contains is brought to their attention. I think this is a good notice and if your Lordships will allow me, I propose to read it. It is headed, "It is important that you should read this"—which is probably the reason why it is not read!—and there then follow, under the heading
"Housing—Application for Accommodation in the United Kingdom."
these words:
"Although substantial progress has been made in housing since the war, there is, in most districts, still a large unsatisfied demand for houses"—
and now, in bigger type—
"so if you are soon leaving the Service and will need civilian accommodation for your family, this N.B.I."—
which is short for Notice Board information—
"tells you how to apply for it."

481
"Local authorities are entirely responsible for the allocation of council houses. These authorities deal with applications for council houses on the basis of relative need. Where there is a housing shortage, therefore, it is probable, for instance, that a family without children would be less likely to obtain a house than a family with children. Also it would not necessarily be the family which had been longest on the list which would obtain the next available house.
Local authorities are usually disposed to give more favourable consideration to applicants who have previously resided, or have secured employment, in their district, although they do not all of them insist on this when dealing with Service applications.
Regular personnel, therefore, who wish to apply for council houses, are advised to write first of all to the local authority in the district where they may have some residential or employment qualification. They should write as follows:—
'I am a serving member of the Army and I desire to apply for a council house for my family.'
Information on the following points should be added:—

(a) Whether or not the applicant's wife has a separate house or flat. If so, give the address, and the number of rooms occupied.

(b) Whether or not he has already applied for accommodation.

(c) Particulars of the family, divided between adults, children, sexes and ages.

The local authority may require their own form to be completed, in which case the applicant should complete and return the form without delay."
THE EARL OF LUCAN: May I ask the date of that Notice Board Information?
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: This N.B.I. refers to A.C.I. 273 of 1951. I will ask my Service colleagues to satisfy themselves that there are sufficient of these notices, and that they are displayed in prominent places so that they may be seen by everybody; and to see that married men are told by their company or platoon commanders, or whoever is responsible, of the notice which I have just read out. I will also ensure that it shall be brought to the notice of all married men, or of potentially married men, as early as possible in their careers.

  RESEARCH ON RATS AND RABBITS
  RESEARCH ON RATS AND RABBITS
  NATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR RENT AND RATES
  NATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR RENT AND RATES