Sitting of 13 May 1954

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
DUNDEE CORPORATION (WATER TRANSPORT FINANCE &C.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
FORTH ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Factory Inspectors (Qualifications)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Labour how many of the factory inspectors in the entry grade have science qualifications; and how many are arts graduates.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): Of the 83 factory inspectors in the entry grade, seven have science qualifications and 61 are arts graduates. Two inspectors have engineering qualifications and 13 have considerable works experience.
    Dr. Stross: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman remember that there was a different picture in this connection before the war, when most of the people in the entry grade had technical and scientific qualifications? It he aware that the change may be due, in part at least, to the fact that such graduates are now taken over by other Ministries which are able to offer higher financial incentives? Will the Minister do something about this?
    Sir W. Monckton: The answer to the last part—which is perhaps the most
    1404
    important part of the hon. Member's question—is that a claim for an increase in the salaries of the chief inspector, deputy chief inspectors and superintending inspectors is at present under consideration.
    Dr. Stross: Is the Minister aware that we are all very happy to hear that, not because we have any interest in any particular person but because if the grades are lifted in this way for the chiefs it means that the whole status of the service is raised as well?

    Workers, Tullos (Dismissal)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that about 60 men have just been dismissed from Tullos factory, Aberdeen, owing to a recession in the industry there; and what steps he is taking to provide employment for these men.
    Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir; 53 men and 10 women were paid off from Tullos factory with wages until 7th May. The Employment Exchange Service will assist those who register to find other work.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he hold out any prospect that this unemployment will cease and alternative employment will be offered? Does he realise that, from the national point of view, this loss in productivity is very serious?
    Sir W. Monckton: Of the men mentioned in the answer, 13 are fully skilled and there will be no difficulty in placing them. What is causing this redundancy is a temporary slowing down in subcontracting work which, it is hoped, will be resumed at the former rate by the autumn.

    Aircraft Industry, Scotland
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a recession in the aeroplane industry in Scotland is increasing unemployment there; how many workers in this industry in Scotland are now unemployed, and in which factories; and what steps he is taking to find them work.
    Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. The number of persons employed in the aircraft industry in Scotland in March, 1954, was nearly 16,000. This was over 2,000 higher than the previous year. Less than

    1405
    1 per cent, were unemployed in April, and the Employment Exchange Service will continue to assist them to get work.
    Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister say how it is that though there is no general unemployment in this industry in Scotland there is unemployment in Aberdeen? Why Aberdeen?
    Sir W. Monckton: One must begin with the satisfactory news that, in the aircraft industry in general in Scotland, there is no or very little unemployment. From time to time there are places where the position is more difficult than in others, but I do not apprehend any serious unemployment in this industry.
    Mr. Robens: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman also give consideration to the difficult position arising in Northern Ireland as a result of redundancy in this aircraft work?
    Sir W. Monckton: That is quite a different area, but it is the same kind of question and I am already giving it such consideration as I can.

    Tobacco Factory, Stirling (Closing)
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the British-American Tobacco Company employ over 200 workers at their factory in Stirling; and what steps he is taking to ensure that other work is available for these workers when this factory closes down.
    Sir W. Monckton: I am aware that the British-American Tobacco Company is dosing its factory at Stirling next month, and that this will cause about 200 workers to become redundant. My local officers are taking steps to find other employment for them and I am glad to say that 77 have already secured other jobs.
    Mr. MacPherson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that about three-quarters of these workers are girls and young women, for whom it is already very difficult to find employment in the area?
    Sir W. Monckton: Yes, but I can assure the hon. Member that in addition to the 77 who are to become redundant next month and have already got other jobs I have firm hopes for another 30, and I shall pursue my endeavours for the rest.

  HOSPITALS

    Ambulance Service, Oldham (Expenditure)
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Health the saving in public funds estimated to be achieved in the area of the Oldham Hospital Management Committee and in England and Wales, respectively, as a result of his recent circular advocating limited use of ambulance services.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): The object of the circular is to ensure that any extravagance which may exist is eliminated. Until action under the circular is well advanced my right hon. Friend has no means of estimating what saving there may be.
    Mr. Hale: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that it is the essence of an ambulance service that it should be ambulatory and not static? A static ambulance with a static driver is not economical. Is it not a fact that this precious circular lists 19 separate ways in which it is suggested that a few odd coppers' worth of service can be saved in dealing with the maimed, the halt, the sick and the dying?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: That is an entirely false interpretation of my right hon. Friend's circular. The aim is to eliminate extravagance and not to limit proper demands.

    Harlow New Town
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health when it is anticipated that a hospital will be built and made available at Harlow New Town; and whether the plans include provision for a special children's ward and a modern health clinic.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): The scheme will begin as soon as it can be fitted into the capital programme. I am informed that the Regional Hospital Board's plans include a children's department and consultative clinics, and that a health centre is to be provided on an adjoining site by the responsible authorities.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can the Minister say exactly when these two very important departments are likely to be opened?
    Mr. Macleod: No, I cannot. It is a question of priorities and essentially one for the regional hospital board. There are a great many other similar problems, perhaps even more urgent, in, for example, the Hatfield-Welwyn area, that have to be taken into account.

    Children's Nurses (Recruitment)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health, in view of the special requirements for child nursing in hospitals and the need for specialised training of nurses for this purpose, to what extent special wards or departments have been, and are being, opened in hospitals; and what efforts are being made to secure recruits for this type of nursing.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: At the end of 1952, the latest date for which figures are available, there were in England and Wales some 24,000 hospital beds for short-stay sick children, about 10,000 of them being in hospitals devoted entirely to children.
    My right hon. Friend is not aware of any need for special recruitment measures in this field, which is a very popular one.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Tuberculosis, Tyneside
    Mr. Shortasked the Minister of Health if he will investigate the relationship between the incidence of tuberculosis on Tyneside and the pollution of the tidal part of the river.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I am advised that any such relationship is highly improbable.
    Mr. Short: Is the Minister aware that in spite of the very great improvements since the war the proportion of tuberculosis on Tyneside is still almost twice the national one? Is he further aware that the pollution of the tidal waters of the Tyne is really shocking? It is one of the most heavily-polluted rivers in the country. May there not be some connection between these facts? Will he not at least look into the problem?
    Mr. Macleod: It was as a result of doing so that I gave the answer. It is certainly true that the incidence of tuberculosis in this area is much higher than in the rest of the country, but I am
    1408
    advised that of the one or two cases mentioned in medical literature there was only one on the North-East coast, in 1949, which might be linked up with polluted water. Infection is normally passed in the air through the medium of a droplet or of dust and, therefore, would not normally be connected with water pollution.
    Mr. Popplewell: Is the Minister aware of the proud and important status of the Tyne in the life of the people of the North-East? Is he also aware that we all regret its continued use as an open sewer? It is- having a very detrimental effect in that area. Will he endeavour to influence local authorities to try to introduce a comprehensive sewerage scheme in the area, so as to prevent the Tyne being used as it is at present?
    Mr. Macleod: That is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but if any evidence came to me from that area that there was a link between what is admittedly a still high, though a dropping, incidence of tuberculosis and any pollution, I should be very glad to go into the matter.

    Mental Nurses (Shortage)
    Mr. D. Healeyasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the shortage of mental nurses, he will approve the establishment of a separate Whitley Council for mental nurses.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir; I do not think that this would help in any way.
    Mr. Healey: Is the Minister aware that his reply will disappoint many people who believe that so long as pay and conditions in the nursing services for the mental and mentally defective are subject to the same conditions as those of the nursing service as a whole there will be very little prospect of attracting new recruits to this extremely exacting branch of the profession?
    Mr. Macleod: Although this problem causes us all concern, the solution must be a matter of opinion. It is a much wider affair than a mere change of Whitley machinery. I have given the House figures showing that we are tackling this problem on a much wider front, and I look to results from this rather than from the suggestion contained in the hon. Member's Question.
    Mr. Lindgren: Does the Minister agree that, in general, the introduction of individual Whitley Councils for individual grades is a retrograde step, and that the larger the Council and the greater the number of grades included the easier it is to make a comparison of the duties performed?
    Mr. Macleod: That is a very wide generalisation. I think that the present procedure is right in this respect. There is a special standing committee for mental nurses on the Staff Side of the Whitley Council.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health the present shortage of nursing staff in hospitals for mental defectives; whether this is an improvement or otherwise compared with preceding years; how many beds are not used because of the shortage; how many are now waiting admission; what further steps have been taken or considered in order to secure additional trainees and nurses in these hospitals; and what percentage of student nurses do not complete their training.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Estimates in this field vary and are not very reliable. The latest is about 2,300 for December, 1952. The nursing staff of mental deficiency hospitals was, at 30th September, 1953, 6,600 full-time and 2,200 part-time, an increase of 480 full-time and 740 part-time over the figures at 31st December, 1948. At 31st December, 1952, there were 1,587 unstaffed beds. The waiting list at 31st December, 1953, was 8,521.
    I will send the hon. Member a copy of the memorandum to hospital authorities dealing with measures taken to improve recruitment. Between 60 per cent, and 70 per cent, of student nurses in this field fail to complete training.
    Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the hon. Lady for her reply, and being gratified that there has been some slight progress, may I ask whether any extra special efforts are being made to recruit nurses for this very important branch of the nursing service, particularly in view of the large number who give up the work after a short time?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member will be aware that my right hon. Friend is concentrating on the recruiting
    1410
    of nurses for this work this year. Experiments are taking place under the aegis of the General Nursing Council. We have recommended various measures that are outlined in the memorandum that I will send to the hon. Member.

    Ophthalmic Examinations
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Minister of Health how often a person may have his sight examined under the supplementary ophthalmic service.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: As often as necessary, but ophthalmic medical practitioners and ophthalmic opticians were asked in 1950 not to repeat a test within a year except where there was special reason for doing so.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the hon. Lady aware that one large executive council on the South Coast is telling its doctors not to examine patients more than once in 12 months? Will she take action in this matter if I give her particulars of the case?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The general instructions were that practitioners should secure the permission of the Ophthalmic Services Committee where there had been a previous sight test within the year, except in urgent cases, or cases notified to the patient's doctor as subject to further examination. If the cases which the hon. Member has in mind come into that second category I shall be only too happy to look into the matter.

    Inoculated Children (Health Effects)
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt by Mr. Bradshaw, particulars of whose case have been submitted to his Department, about the treatment given to his child Jane, who is suffering from speech deformity following the last of a series of four inoculations for diphtheria and whooping cough; that, as Mr. Bradshaw could see no improvement in his child's health following attendance at a public clinic as such attendance affected the nerves of both mother and child, he sent her to a speech therapist with beneficial results; and whether, in view of the special circumstances, he will make some payment to Mr. Bradshaw for the treatment the child is now receiving.
    Mr. Iain Macleod rose—
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order. Before the Question is answered I want to emphasise that it relates to the combined inoculations against diphtheria and whooping cough, and not against diphtheria alone. There has been some misunderstanding on the subject.
    Mr. Macleod: I have carefully examined the facts of this distressing case, but I do not consider the circumstances are such as would justify a contribution towards the cost of private treatment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is my right hon. Friend aware that two doctors have testified that they considered that the defective speech of this child is due to these injections? Is he further aware that teachers under the National Health Service simply have not the time to give proper treatment to this child? Why should these unfortunate parents have to pay large sums of money to try to save this child's life because of what they and certain doctors consider to be the bad treatment of the National Health Service?
    Mr. Macleod: I cannot accept that statement. It is certainly a possibility, but it is not certain that this speech defect is due to the inoculations. As far as treatment for Jane is concerned, it has (been suggested—and I make the offer again—that we should, if necessary, give extra time out of ordinary clinic hours, in the babies' hospital, to this very difficult case. I do not think we can do more than that. If the parents accept that offer, or my hon. and gallant Friend will consult me on the matter, I shall see what I can do, but all the conditions of treatment are available for use within the National Health Service.
    Mr. I. O. Thomas: Will the Minister confirm that his answer means that full facilities for speech therapy treatment are available in the National Health Service for this child?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. It is fair to say that the parents were rather dissatisfied with the amount of time which could be given to any one child, and, therefore, wanted to have private treatment outside the scheme, which they are quite entitled to do.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Health the number of children during the last five years whose health was affected by inoculation for diphtheria and whooping cough; how many of these cases received treatment under the National Health Service; in how many cases the children regained their full health; and in how many cases there is permanent injury or deep-seated injury.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I regret that the detailed information asked for is not available, but serious illness attributable to inoculation is known to be extremely rare.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since I tabled this Question I have received evidence from parents all over the country on this subject? One poor woman has three children out of four whose speech has been affected. If I send him particulars of these cases will my right hon. Friend promise to look into them very carefully and, if necessary, inquire into the whole matter?
    Mr. Macleod: It is true that there is a minimal hazard attached to immunisation. We all know that. But it is equally true that the importance which has been attached to such immunisation in recent years has done an enormous amount to lessen the incidence of these diseases.
    Dr. Stross: Can the Minister say what proportion of cases were affected by paralysis of the palate when they suffered from diphtheria before inoculation was invented? Was it not much higher then than it is now?
    Mr. Macleod: I have not those figures with me, but I will see whether they are available. Certainly, the number, in relation to the total number of diphtheria inoculations carried out each year—which is more than a million—is tiny.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: My right hon. Friend has missed my point. We all admit that these inoculations do a tremendous amount of good. I am complaining that there are cases where the wretched parents are hit very hard. This poor woman has three children out of four—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Speech my foot. My right hon. Friend cannot explain that away.
    Mr. Macleod: I am not trying to explain anything away. This is a very distressing case. I have read all the papers with great care, and I shall be happy to discuss the matter with my hon. and gallant Friend. It still remains true that medicine is not an exact science, and that risks are attached to immunisation or any other form of treatment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Health whether, under his regulations, special treatment, outside the National Health Service, is ever given to children in cases where a deterioration in a child's health may be the result of treatment or action by a National Health Service doctor or hospital.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I am "browned off."

    Day Nurseries, Harrogate
    Mr. Ramsdenasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the proposal to close down one of the two day nurseries in Harrogate; and whether he is satisfied that adequate extra provision will be made in the other for health cases before this proposal is put into effect.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) on 6th May.
    Mr. Ramsdenasked the Minister of Health how many places there are in each of the two day nurseries in Harrogate; and how many of those who now use them fall into the category of health cases.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Forty in each. The latest available figures show a total of 69 health cases, including cases of housing difficulties.
    Mr. Ramsden: In view of the preponderance of health cases over industrial cases, can my hon. Friend say what her further policy will be for the accommodation of the health cases?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: There is a period of two months after the local health authority has given notice during which interested bodies may lay their considerations or objections before my right hon. Friend, and the closing time is not until 19th May. I think it would be premature now to anticipate what they may be, or my right hon. Friend's decision.

  EDUCATION

    Schools Television Service
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the long delay before a school television service can be started by the British Broadcasting Corporation, she will invite commercial television interests to undertake this service.
    The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh): No, Sir.
    Mr. Jeger: May I thank the right hon. Lady for agreeing with us that commercial television interests cannot be trusted to look after the children?

    Wokingham Secondary School (Cost)
    Mr. Remnantasked the Minister of Education to state the all-in cost of the Wokingham Secondary School.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I regret that the final accounts for this school are not yet settled, but negotiations are being pressed on so as to get a final figure with the least possible delay.
    Mr. Remnant: As this school has been in occupation by children for educational purposes for over a year, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this information will be speedily obtained?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, it certainly will be, but I think my hon. Friend will realise that even when the children are in a new school there is generally a certain amount of work still to be done. Very often 18 months and sometimes slightly more are required before the final account can be approved.

    Grammar and Modern Secondary Schools (Differentiation)
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Education the difference between a grammar school and a modern secondary school.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of Ministry of Education pamphlet No. 9. This describes both the similarities and the differences, and remains a useful survey of secondary education, although more experience has been gained since it was published in 1947.
    Sir H. Williams: What statutory authority is there for this differentiation?
    Miss Horsbrugh: There is no statutory authority for the different names.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Will the right hon. Lady also send to her hon. Friend a copy of the kind of tests which are imposed to tell to which of these schools children of 11 should go?
    Miss Horsbrugh: That is entirely a matter for the local education authority, and I do not interfere.

    Nursery Schools
    Mr. George Craddockasked the Minister of Education if, in view of present and future needs, she will consider lifting the ban on the building of nursery schools, by the removal of Circular 155, issued in 1947.
    Mr. J. Hyndasked the Minister of Education whether she will now withdraw Circular No. 155 and thus enable education authorities to proceed with the provision of nursery schools.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) on 15th April last.
    Mr. Craddock: Will the right hon. Lady go very carefully into this matter to see whether the Government can in some part carry out their programme that they enunciated at the last Election? If the Government want to help the people they would do well to make it possible for these nursery schools to be built.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I quite agree, but I think the hon. Gentleman realises that our first duty must be to the children of compulsory school age. There has been a slight increase since 1951 in the number of nursery schools, and in the number of children at them, but I cannot say that we can reverse the policy laid down in 1947 until we have got ahead with the building programme for the children of compulsory school age.

    Grammar Schools
    Mr. Morleyasked the Minister of Education (1) in which local education authority areas the percentage of
    1416
    children aged 13 receiving grammar school education to the total of children aged 13 in maintained and assisted schools in the area is less than 10 per cent, and between 10 and 15 per cent., respectively;
    (2) in which local education authority areas the percentage of children receiving grammar school education to the total of children aged 13 in maintained and assisted schools in the area is between 25 and 35 per cent, and above 35 per cent., respectively.
    Miss Horsbrugh: In January, 1953, the numbers of local education authorities concerned in the four categories mentioned in the Questions were 7, 27, 23, and 10, respectively. This answer takes no account of children for whose grammar school education each authority provides in schools outside its own jurisdiction, but it includes places available to children from other areas. It does not, therefore, give an accurate picture of the degree of opportunity open to children in each area to obtain a grammar school education.
    I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the areas concerned.
    Mr. Morley: What action is the right hon. Lady taking in the case of local authorities that have not many grammar school places to offer to ensure that they should have grammar school courses in their modern secondary schools?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I am hoping to have before long fuller information about the degree of opportunity there is for children in each area. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that a good many things have to be taken into consideration, such as the need for other types of secondary education and the availability of places at schools not maintained or assisted by the local education authority.
    Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is some disquiet about the allocation of grammar school places not merely within the area of a local education authority, but within the divisional area as a whole? It seems to be the case, certainly in Staffordshire, that where there is a grammar school the greater is the number of places allotted within the immediate vicinity, and that places where there is not a grammar school have a much smaller share of the available places. Would the right hon. Lady look into that?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Yes. I have already looked into some cases that have been brought to my notice. I think it would be better if the hon. Gentleman took the matter up with the local education authority.

    Less than 10 per cent.

    Between 10per cent, and 15 per cent.

    Between 25 per cent, and 35 per cent.

    35 per cent, and over

    Blackburn

    Barnsley

    ENGLAND

    ENGLAND

    Bolton

    Bedfordshire

    Bradford

    Gloucester

    Gateshead

    Birmingham

    Canterbury

    Westmorland

    Isles of Scilly

    Bristol

    Cornwall

    Rutland

    Coventry

    Darlington

    WALES

    Salford

    Dudley

    Devon

    Breconshire

    West Bromwich

    Durham

    Dorset

    Caernarvonshire

    Essex

    Eastbourne

    Cardiganshire

    Isle of Wight

    Gloucestershire

    Carmarthenshire

    Liverpool

    Huntingdonshire

    Denbighshire

    Manchester

    Isle of Ely

    Merionethshire

    Newcastle-upon-Tyne

    Lincoln

    Montgomeryshire

    Norfolk

    Peterborough Joint Board

    Pembrokeshire.

    Northumberland

    Southend-on-Sea

    Nottingham

    Wallasey

    Nottinghamshire

    York

    Preston

    Reading

    WALES

    St. Helens

    Cardiff

    Sheffield

    Flintshire

    Staffordshire

    Glamorgan

    Stoke-on-Trent

    Merthyr Tydfil

    Suffolk West

    Monmouthshire

    Sunderland

    Newport (Mon.)

    Wakefield

    Radnorshire

    Warrington

    Swansea

    West Hartlepool

    Eltham Hill Grammar School Pupils (Transfer)
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Minister of Education whether she will make a statement on her refusal to approve the transfer of Eltham Hill Secondary School for girls to Kidbrooke Comprehensive School.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I considered the London County Council's arguments in support of their proposal to cease to maintain the Eltham Hill Grammar School and to transfer the pupils to Kidbrooke Comprehensive School on its opening. I studied the many objections received, the grounds on which they were made, and the authority's observations on these objections. After taking into account the reputation of the Eltham Hill school, and the success with which it has served its purpose as a grammar school, I concluded that it would not be educationally advantageous to close it.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware of the widespread anxiety that Kidbrooke Comprehensive School should be a
    Mr. Gower: Would my right hon. Friend tell parents that if they were to come to live in Wales their children would have a better chance of grammar school education?
    Following is the statement:
    success? Is she aware that the whole future of this promising school is being jeopardised by prejudice and by hostility towards it on her part?
    Miss Horsbrugh: The Kidbrooke School will open as a comprehensive school exactly as was planned under the London Development Plan. There was no thought then of closing Eltham Hill and transferring the children from Eltham to Kidbrooke. As to the popularity of the decision, I think we must leave the choice to parents and teachers themselves to decide where they wish to be, as far as possible. I am glad to hear that the London County Council has given full opportunity to both teachers and children to transfer, if they wish, from Eltham to Kidbrooke.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statutory requirement to which she refers is upon not only her but also all local education authorities—the requirement that children are to be educated as far as possible in accordance with the wishes of their

    1419
    parents? Is she further aware that the overwhelming majority of the parents of girls at Eltham Hill School are grateful to her for her decision and applaud her courage?
    Mr. H. Morrison: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the facts which have been asserted are disputed? Secondly, can she assure the House that in coming to her conclusion upon this matter—and we agree that she should come to a conclusion on the weight of the arguments and evidence on both sides—she has not been actuated by party political considerations? Did she or did she not encourage the London Conservative Party organisation to involve themselves in this matter and give them some impression that she would support their efforts to oppose the closure?
    Miss Horsbrugh: Under the 1944 Act it is the Minister who takes the decision. Under that Act, too, it is the duty of the local authority to publish notices informing the electors of their rights, which are that, in connection with the closing or opening of a school, 10 or more local government electors may object to the Minister. I have said, and I am glad to have the opportunity of saying it again today, that one change has taken place since the Miscellaneous Provisions Act was passed; the local government electors now have that opportunity for only two months instead of the three months open to them before. Local government electors have their opportunity and their rights. The local authority has its rights. But the final decision is the responsibility of the Minister under the 1944 Act.
    Mr. H. Morrison: If I may say so, I was quite aware of that. I knew that the Minister has the final decision. Would the right hon. Lady be good enough to answer the body of my question? [An HON. MEMBER: "It was insulting."] It was not insulting. Will she say whether there was political partiality in conjunction with the London Conservative Party?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I thought that 1 should not have to believe that the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting to me that, when taking a decision which lies upon me as Minister of Education, I took political consideration into account. 1 have said at Conservative meetings, at
    1420
    Labour meetings, and at educational meetings throughout the country that local government electors have certain rights. I have added, over and over again, that when that time is up it is no use their complaining. They have their rights now for two months to send in their objections, instead of for three months. That is the information which I have given and which I will continue to give.
    Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her decision strikes not only at the Kidbrooke School but at the whole of the London County Council plan for comprehensive schools? Can she explain how there can be, in an area, both a comprehensive school and a grammar school; because obviously, if the grammar school is there, children have been creamed off? The right hon. Lady spoke of the rights of parents under the Education Act. Do I take it that any parent whose child is at a modern school can automatically ask for the child to be transferred to a grammar school?
    Miss Horsbrugh: The point which the hon. Lady put in the first part of her question does not arise. There are grammar schools in that area already, as well as a comprehensive school, and the London County Council made it clear that if the Eltham Hill School were closed there were about 80 places at other grammar schools to which children could have been transferred if their parents so wished. As the hon. Lady knows, in the London Development Plan Kidbrooke was to open without Eltham Hill being closed.
    As for the transfer between a modern school and a grammar school, it is for the local education authorities to try as far as possible to meet the wishes of the parent, if they think the education is suitable for the child's age, aptitude and ability.
    Mr. Mayhew: In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    BECHUANALAND (LOBATSI ABATTOIR)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Undersecretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement

    1421
    regarding the future of the colonial development abattoir at Lobatsi, Bechuanaland.
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Undersecretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, whether he will make a statement regarding the future plans for the Lobatsi abattoir of Bechuanaland.
    The Under-Sccretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) on 29th April, 1954.
    Mr. Brockway: Have there not been certain developments since that date, and has not Mr. William Rendell, the General Manager of the Colonial Development Corporation, met the European Advisory Council? Also, should there not fee discussions on this issue with the African farmers who are concerned?
    Mr. Foster: I do not think there has been any development since 29th April. The local Administration and Her Majesty's Government will of course consider all the interests involved. The issues are very complex and I quite agree with the hon. Member that they must be seriously considered.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Can the Minister confirm or deny the suggestion that neither the Union of South Africa nor Southern Rhodesia will be taking meat in future from this abattoir at Lobatsi and that this is leading to uncertainty about the future of the scheme? Is he prepared to do anything about that in the future, if it is a fact?
    Mr. Foster: If it is a fact something would have to be done, but I do not think it is so. I believe that the Union will continue to take the meat. That is a matter which will be very seriously looked at.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Imported Goods (Marking)
    Mr. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now reached a decision about the withdrawal of the option under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, which allows imported
    1422
    goods, which are required to be marked, to bear the words "Foreign" or "Empire" instead of the name of the country of origin.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): No, Sir: the matter is still under consideration.
    Mr. Russell: As this matter has been under consideration for several months, can my right hon. Friend say when his conclusion will be reached? Is he taking into consideration the desire of many consumers on this point?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am taking into consideration the diverse and sometimes conflicting views of quite a number of organisations, but I hope to reach a decision before long.

    International Trade Barriers (Removal)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of official statements of policy made in discussions with the Federal German Government and elsewhere that Britain is trying to encourage more freedom in international trade, when he hopes to remove all barriers to the international movement of goods.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Substantial progress has been made by a number of countries, including ourselves, in the reduction of barriers to trade, but I cannot predict the speed and extent to which further progress may prove possible.
    Sir W. Smithers: Do the Government realise that the expression of pious hopes at international conferences does no good? What we want is deeds, not words. Do the Government also realise that a policy of free trade, freely convertible currency and no coercion is the only policy to save Britain and the world?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think Her Majesty's Government can point to a good deal more than pious hopes in the achievements of their commercial policy.

    INCOME TAX AND SURTAX (STATISTICS)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was produced by Income Tax and Surtax in the years ended April, 1910, 1921, 1935

    1423
    and 1954, respectively; and what percentage this represented of the total revenue of the year in each case.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): As the answer to this Question contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Osborne: Can my hon. Friend say whether the amount which is being produced by direct taxation has been falling in the last period, and whether he expects that this tendency will continue in the future?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the four years which my hon. Friend selected, the figures which I give in the answer which I will circulate show an increase.
    Following is the information:
    The table below shows in thousands of pounds the total Exchequer receipt from Income Tax and Surtax compared with the total ordinary revenue in the four selected financial years.

    Financial Year

    Income Tax and Surtax

    Total Ordinary Revenue

    Percentage

    £'000

    £'000

    1909–10

    13,295

    131,696

    10·1

    1920–21

    394,146

    1,425,985

    27·6

    1934–35

    280,042

    804,629

    34·8

    1953–54

    1,863,391

    4,368,130

    42·7

    GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (COST)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (how many officials, clerks and industrial workers, respectively, are employed by Her Majesty's Government; and what is the cost to the taxpayer of their salaries and other expenses.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On 1st January, 1954, there were 657,385 non-industrial civil servants, of whom about 226,000 were in the clerical, sub-clerical and typing grades; these figures include 248,338 Post Office staff. There were also 434,604 industrial civil servants.
    For the year ended 30th September, 1953, the salaries and wages bill for the non-industrial staff was £349.6 million. I regret that similar information
    1424
    for the industrial staff is not readily available.
    Sir W. Smithers: Will the Treasury do all in their power to reduce the number of the civil servants who are non-producers and who do not help the trade of the country?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Without accepting the implication in my hon. Friend's question against officials whose duty it is to carry out the duties which this House imposes on them, I would remind him that since the change of Government there has been a substantial reduction in the total.
    Sir W. Smithers: Keep going on.

  AGRICULTURE

    Fatstock Marketing Scheme (Objections)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will agree to hold regional inquiries into objections to the proposed Fatstock Marketing Scheme, in view of the large number of livestock producers who are concerned at the penal clauses contained therein.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Sir Thomas Dngdale): The last date for objections to the proposed Fatstock Marketing Scheme was yesterday, 12th May. I am now considering, with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether a public inquiry should be held and at what place or places.
    Sir W. Smithers: Can my right hon. Friend say, in relation to this and other cases, what is the good of removing one control and imposing another one equally vicious?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I do not think that my hon. Friend has any idea of the procedure over the producer marketing boards. They are producer boards, and at this stage of the procedure my right hon. Friends and I decide whether there is to be a public inquiry or not.

    Food Production (Policy)
    Sir R. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the uncertainty of farmers throughout

    1425
    the country in connection with the development of their production of food, the Government's future agricultural policy is for an expansion or for a controlled contraction of home production in this country.
    Sir T. Dugdale: I would direct my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 11 of the recent White Paper on the 1954 Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, which clearly states that the expansion of net output to 60 per cent, above pre-war is still a major objective.
    Sir R. De la Bèere: May I ask my right hon. Friend how he thinks, in view of the quantifying and many other matters which the Chancellor has alluded to, it is possible to relate them to any possible form of expansion? Does he realise that the matter cannot be lightly dismissed? I shall continue to ask questions about this.
    Sir T. Dugdale: Perhaps my hon. Friend will remember that I suggested that he should read the White Paper. May I also suggest that, as well as reading the White Paper, he should read the answer to a Question which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member foe New-bury (Mr. Hurd) the day before yesterday, which shows a remarkable expansion in production.
    Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman also advise his hon. Friend to read paragraph 13 of Command Paper No. 9104—the latest White Paper —and inform his hon. Friend exactly what the Chancellor meant when he said "They might start to quantify production."
    Sir T. Dugdale: I do not think it would be appropriate to reply by way of question and answer, but I have a note to remind my hon. Friend of paragraph 13 of the White Paper. So far as this year is concerned, the only arrangements that provide for any kind of limitation are those for milk.
    Mr. T. Williams: Does the Minister think that that answer will be regarded by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir R. De la Bèere) as "thoroughly unsatisfactory"?

    Myxomatosis
    Major Anstnither-Grayasked the Minister of Agriculture how far north the rabbit disease of myxomatosis has spread up to date.
    Sir T. Dugdale: The most northerly outbreaks reported so far are on the Suffolk-Norfolk border, near Southwold and Mendham.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Has there been a noticeable spread in other directions?
    Sir T. Dugdale: In addition to the answer to the question which I have given, I think that the House might like to know that there has been a notable spread, during the last three weeks or so, in East and South-East England. Isolated outbreaks have been confirmed in the Isle of Wight and during the last few days in Gloucestershire, Radnorshire and Cornwall.
    Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was reported in the Press recently that some Cumberland butchers took rabbits from an infected area which were taken back to Cumberland? Can he say whether there has been any myxomatosis in Cumberland since then?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Not so far as has been reported to me. So far as I can ascertain, there is no justification for these rumours.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Prisoners (Preventive Detention)
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the methods employed for the provision of work for preventive detention prisoners on their discharge.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): Preventive detention prisoners are released on licence to the supervision of the Central After-Care Association, who arrange for every prisoner to have the opportunity of a personal interview with an officer of the Ministry of Labour prior to his release, so that his registration for suitable employment can be completed in advance. The Association arranges also for the prisoner to be personally advised and assisted on release

    1427
    by one of its Associates, who will usually be a probation officer.
    There is also an experimental scheme now in operation whereby a small number of prisoners in the third stage of a sentence of preventive detention are enabled to take up outside employment for some months prior to their discharge.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is some confusion about this matter in the minds of the prisoners and apparently in the minds of certain of the staff as to whether it is the responsibility of the prisoner nearing discharge to try to find a post for himself; or does he leave that to the Association?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I was not aware of any such confusion. If the hon. Member will give me particulars, I will, of course, have the matter looked into.
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men have been refused and granted one-third remission of their prison sentences by the Board for Licence on Preventive Detention; how far the Board at Parkhurst is assisted by an advisory committee in London; and who are the members and by whom they are appointed; and what reports the Board receive of the men's records from the police, the welfare officer and the governor.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: A prisoner serving a sentence of preventive detention is not eligible for release on licence when two-thirds of the sentence have been served unless he has been admitted to the third stage of the sentence. Admission to the third stage is decided by an advisory board, which sits at Parkhurst and is not assisted or controlled by any other body in London.
    The prison rules provide that the advisory board shall consist of three members of the prison's Board of Visitors approved by the Secretary of State, and such other persons not exceeding four as the Secretary of State may appoint; and that the chairman shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.
    The Chairman is Mr. Bertram Reece, a Metropolitan magistrate. The members representing the Board of Visitors are Lieut.-Colonel C. W. Brannon, Mr. G. C. Russell, and Lieut.-Colonel F. C. R. Britten. The other members are Mr. Duncan Fairn, Director of Prison
    1428
    Administration; Mr. J. C. V. Lovatt, a principal probation officer; and Captain R. C. Williams, a retired prison commissioner.
    The Board is assisted by the Director of the Men's Section of the Central After-Care Association, and has before it all the information about the prisoner that is available in his record and also special reports by the prison governor and his principal subordinates, the medical officer and the chaplain or prison minister.
    The number of prisoners who have been released after serving two-thirds of the sentence is 36; the number who were eligible for admission to the third stage but were not selected for it is 207.
    Mr. Brockway: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that very full reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that a great deal of the unrest at Parkhurst is due to uncertainty about remission of sentences as men approach their discharge? Will he consult the Governor as to whether there is not some procedure by which this unrest can be removed?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind and will let me have the particulars, I will see that it is looked into.

    Mechanically-propelled Vehicles (Children under 16)
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to make it illegal for children under the age of 16 years to drive tractors or other mechanically-propelled vehicles, in view of the fatal accidents recently reported.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: While my right hon. and learned Friend shares my hon. Friend's concern about these accidents, he can hold out no hope that time could be found in the near future for legislation.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is my hon. Friend aware of the problem that arises as a result of these youngsters driving tractors? As these are capable and ambitious lads, whom we cannot afford to lose from the agricultural industry, can he give the matter further consideration?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My right hon. and learned Friend is consulting the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland to see whether anything can be done.
    Mr. Manuel: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind what has been said by his hon. Friend? Is he aware that mechanisation in the agricultural industry has increased enormously in recent years and that we have reached the stage when measures are necessary to prevent young people under 16 from driving tractors?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: No doubt these considerations will be present to the minds of my right hon. Friends in the consultations

    Foster Parents (Payments)
    Mr. Arbuthnotasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many councils deduct family allowances when making payments to foster parents.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I regret that the information is not available.

    MINISTER OF DEFENCE (STATEMENT)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if the recent statement made by Field Marshal Alexander at Copenhagen regarding the conduct of operations in a possible future war involving Great Britain represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): My noble and gallant Friend made no statement of policy whilst in Copenhagen. In private conversations he referred to what might happen in a possible future war—in a spirit which should command agreement and certainly spread confidence.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a report of this statement which appeared in the "Scotsman" said that this country would bear the heaviest atomic attack in the event of war with Russia, that this country would be knocked out, and would be liberated by Canada and the other Dominions? Is that the sort of thing which inspires confidence in the civilian population in this country?
    The Prime Minister: My noble Friend was indicating that even if the worst that people imagine were to come to pass, we should not give in.
    Mr. Bottomley: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether a report is to be made to Parliament of a meeting this week between the Danish Minister of Defence and the Minister of Defence of Her Majesty's Government?

    ASIA (U.K.-U.S. POLICY)
    Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement on the points of agreement and difference with the United States of America which have arisen over policy in Asia before and during the Geneva Conference.
    The Prime Minister: The relations of Great Britain with other countries are a matter of constant thought and study and statements upon them are made to Parliament whenever it is thought that the public interest will be served thereby.
    Mr. Wyatt: Why is the Prime Minister so secretive about all these matters? Why does he never give the House any information?
    Sir T. Moore: Why is the hon. Gentleman so impertinent?
    Mr. Wyatt: Why have we to learn what is going on in Indo-China and Geneva from Mr. Dulles and from President Eisenhower's Press conferences? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman told the House something, so that we can have an influence on the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
    The Prime Minister: I am always glad when it falls to my lot and to my duty to make general statements to the House.

    HYDROGEN AND ATOM BOMB TESTS
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether information has now been received from the United States Government with regard to the hydrogen test series of explosions which took place during March and April; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: I am not prepared as at present advised to give any information beyond that which has appeared in the Press.
    Mr. Henderson: In view of the great public concern over the development of

    1431
    the hydrogen bomb, would the Prime Minister consider proposing that there should be a suspension of all hydrogen tests and explosions pending the outcome of the Disarmament Commission, which began its deliberations this morning?
    The Prime Minister: I think we dealt with that at an early stage in the experiments. I have no power to give directions on the subject to the United States or to the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Henderson: I did not ask the Prime Minister to give directions. What I asked him was whether he will consider proposing the suspension of these tests?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think it would be much use deciding to propose such a course without some consideration of whether it was likely to be adopted or not.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister how many underwater atomic or hydrogen explosions have been recorded by the scientific instruments at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government; and which of them appear to have been connected with experimental explosions by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    The Prime Minister: The answer to this Question would reveal the degree of efficiency of our apparatus for the detection of atomic explosions and this would not be in the public interest.

    SOUTH-EAST ASIA (DEFENCE)
    Mr. Bevanasked the Prime Minister which are the countries with which Her Majesty's Government are having conversations with regard to a security pact for South-East Asia.
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement regarding the progress of the conversations regarding a South-East Asia security arrangement.
    The Prime Minister: I should be very ready to make a statement on this subject, but the situations at Geneva and in Paris are, at the present time, so uncertain that I think it would be better to wait till next Monday. If the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member will repeat their Questions then, I will give
    1432
    them the fullest answers which are possible.
    Mr. Follick: In view of the fact that the Portuguese have a colony very near Australia, can the Prime Minister say whether anything can be done about that colony in the conversations that will deal with that area?
    The Prime Minister: I should like to make detailed inquiries into these matters before I attempt a public answer.

    INDO-CHINA (DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES)
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement regarding the consultations which have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Burma regarding the future of Indo-China.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. These diplomatic exchanges are confidential. If this confidence were not respected the exchanges would be seriously impaired.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is it not a fact that the attitude of Burma to a proposed alliance on Asia is vitally important? How can the right hon. Gentleman expect this House to make any assessment of the future policy of the Government unless we are in possession of this vital fact?
    The Prime Minister: I was speaking about our duty to preserve the confidence of those with whom we have had confidential discussions. It is not our business to make them public to the people of Burma over the heads of the Governments concerned.
    Mr. Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the visit to this country recently of the Burmese Foreign Minister was extremely welcome to the many people who had the opportunity of meeting him?
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Prime Minister what answer Her Majesty's Government has received from the Prime Minister of India in reply to the request for his views on any future guarantees affecting Indo-China.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) on 10th May on this point.
    Mr. Donnelly: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the answers he has just given to Questions Nos. 50 and 52 and consult the Governments concerned to see that we have the maximum amount of information available compatible with the ordinary diplomatic confidences?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I am very anxious that the House should be carried along with the Government in any matters of foreign policy, especially as there is such a large measure of agreement on important issues. I do not think we can begin by loosely and curtly publishing documents which were considered to be private and confidential by the Prime Ministers and the Governments to whom we had addressed them.
    Mr. Warbey: As the Government of India have just published the essence of their views on this question, why is Her Majesty's Government suppressing the Indian view? Is it because they do not like the views of India on this matter?
    The Prime Minister: Anything the Indian Government have declared publicly is published and might even be read by Members of the House.
    Mr. Bevan: The Prime Minister has promised that he will answer Questions Nos. 48 and 51 next Monday. Can we take it for granted that Her Majesty's Government will not commit themselves to any proposal until we in this House have had an opportunity to discuss it?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I certainly would not give any such undertaking. The responsibility in these matters always rests with the Government of the day, and the House can do as it likes with them when all the facts are before it.
    Mr. Bevan: As there has been prolonged and what one might describe as hesitant negotiations, discussions, consultations and conversations on this matter, ought we not to be allowed to express our views about the outcome before we are faced with a fait accompli?
    The Prime Minister: I think a statement can be made on Monday which will say all that there is to say on these difficult matters, which are in a very indeterminate position at the present time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal to state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 17TH MAY—At the beginning of business my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will move a Motion for an humble Address to Her Majesty the Queen on her return from her Commonwealth Tour.
Report and Third Reading: Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Bill.
TUESDAY, 18TH MAY—Motion to approve: Report from the Business Committee on the Committee stage of the Television Bill, which is a formal proceeding.
Beginning of Committee stage: Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 19TH MAY—Committee stage>: Television Bill (1st allotted day).
Motion relating to: National Service (Adaptation of Enactments) (Navy, Army and Air Force Reserves) Order.
THURSDAY, 20TH MAY—Committee stage: Television Bill (2nd allotted day).
FRIDAY, 21ST MAY—Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there has been a conversation through the usual channels about a further debate on Members' payments in the near future?
Mr. Crookshank: I think we had better have today's debate before we start talking about other debates.
Mr. Attlee: I thought it was understood that there was to be a debate today at which we shall have merely expressions of opinion, and that a further debate would take place after that, for which arrangements would be made in due course?
Mr. Crookshank: Arrangements can be made in due course, but I hope it is quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman that this is the day which the Government have given for that purpose.
Captain Waterhouse: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the third special Report of the Estimates Committee? If so, can he find an opportunity at an early date for the House to discuss the extremely important recommendations set out in the Report?
Mr. Crookshank: I have seen a Motion on the Order Paper, but I do not see any chance of finding any time for a debate.
[That Mr. Yates, Mr. Norman Cole, Mr. Horobin, Mr. W. T. Jones, Mr. J. T. Price, Mr. Tomney and Miss Ward have leave of absence to make inquiries on behalf of the House into certain expenditure in connection with the Office of the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Germany and the Embassies in Paris and Rome.]
Mr. Woodburn: I take it that the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman about Monday's business is a hope, rather than a decision, that it will be all accomplished in one day? The Secretary of State has a large number of Amendments to the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Bill, and it would seem unlikely that the Report stage and Third Reading will be finished in one day.
Mr. Crookshank: I cannot assess the likelihood or unlikelihood of that, but it is certainly not an unreasonable thing to hope will happen.
Mr. Yates: On the question put by the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Water-house) about the Estimates Committee, the Leader of the House referred to a Motion, but I want to ask him why he cannot find time for the Report itself to be considered, which has implications in regard to how this House can have control over expenditure abroad?
Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman probably knows that Reports of the Select Committee on Estimates can be discussed on Supply days.
Mr. H. Morrison: The question of my hon. Friend raises a point of principle. This is a Report of a Committee of the House and, as I understand, the issue involved is whether or not, respecting certain foreign embassies as to which there is agreement in the Foreign Office, they can take a Commitee Clerk with
1436
them, without whom they cannot prepare a proper Report. There is disagreement between some authorities and my hon. Friends. This is a sub-committee of the Estimates Committee over which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman presides, and surely it is right that the House of Commons should seek to resolve this point. It would not take very long.
Mr. Crookshank: The only point I was making was that, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Standing Orders, he will see that Supply days are available for Supply business, and also for discussion of any Report from the Select Committee which the House might wish to discuss. When the right hon. Gentleman says that there is some dispute between the authorities of this matter, I can assure him that there is no dispute whatsoever.
Mr. Morrison: I know that a Supply day can be used for anything and that the Government are anxious that it should be used, but since this is a report to the House, and there is a difficulty involved which I think the Estimates Committee would like to see resolved, it is not unreasonable that the Government should supply, say, half a day for the discussion of this business?
Miss Ward: Does not my right hon. Friend think it is quite unreasonable to ask the Opposition to give up a Supply day for a discussion of this most important matter, namely, what control the House of Commons has over its own expenditure abroad? It has nothing to do with either the Government or the Opposition; it is a House of Commons matter. Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am extremely surprised at the line he has taken?
Mr. Crookshank: I did not quite hear the final words of my hon. Friend. Did she express surprise? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes‡"] It is nothing like the surprise I express at her.
Mr. J. Johnson: Can the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government have finally jettisoned the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill? Will he perhaps tell us something about that next week at this time?
Mr. Crookshank: Did the hon. Gentleman say perhaps next week?
Mr. Johnson: Yes, that he might say something about this next week at this time.
Mr. Crookshank: I will say "perhaps" to that.
Mr. Ross: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the point about the Estimates Committee? Will he bear in mind that this is the second time that the Estimates Committee has drawn attention to the need of this House to discuss the matter, and that it is of considerable importance to the House?
Mr. Crookshank: These matters can, of course, be discussed if there is a real desire to discuss them. I was merely pointing out that it is within the power of the Committee of Supply to discuss it on a Supply day, but that does not affect the position that all authorities are quite satisfied that it would be unconstitutional to send abroad any such Committee as an official sub-committee—
Miss Ward: That is not the point.
Mr. Crookshank: That is the point which has been put to me. If the hon. Lady has another point, that is another matter, but all the authorities are agreed that to send abroad a sub-committee of any Committee of this House, formally as such, would be unconstitutional procedure.
Mr. Attlee: But is not the hon. Lady correct in reminding the Lord Privy Seal
1438
that as Leader of the House he is concerned with the privileges and rights of this House as a whole? Quite apart from whether it is Government or Opposition or anything else, this is a very important matter which has been raised by a responsible Committee, as to what are the rights of this House in relation to expenditure. It is one of our oldest privileges. Surely it is right that time should be given for discussion.
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Crookshank: I really have not anything more to say. I said that these matters could be discussed if the House really felt it wanted them debated. I merely said that it would be rather a fruitless debate when all authorities who can have any information on this matter take the view that such action is unconstitutional.
Mr. Summers: In relation to the Motion for which my right hon. Friend said it might be difficult to find time, would he make inquiries through the usual channels, because it might be found that it was not a controversial matter and could be taken in an extremely short time, which would give what the Estimates Committee wants and not take up the time of the House?
Mr. Crookshank: I note that, but a debate which takes up no time would be unusual.

MEMBERS' EXPENSES
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]
3.39 p.m.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: I desire to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Expenses, which was published on 2nd February of this year. I think it right at the beginning of my speech to remind the House of the terms of reference, which were:
"to consider and report upon the extent to which the Members' Fund fulfils, under present conditions, the purposes for which it was set up, and upon the nature and extent of the expenditure incurred by Members of this House in the performance of their duties and also upon the practice of Commonwealth and Foreign Parliaments for meeting comparable expenditure incurred by their Members in this field."
I am sure that I am expressing the feelings of the whole House when I say to the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) how grateful we are to him as Chairman of the Select Committee and to all his colleagues for doing a very difficult job extremely well and with very great efficiency. We note with very great pleasure that the Report which they issued on this very difficult matter of Members' expenses was a unanimous Report, and for that we are very much obliged.
I am sure that the House will bear with me in the difficult task that lies ahead of me for the next 20 minutes or so. My job is to refer to a matter which is personal to us all. When I knew that I was to open this debate, I did some research. I found that of the three major debates that have taken place on this subject, the first, in 1911, was initiated by Mr. David Lloyd George, the second, in 1937, by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, and the third, in 1946, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). This knowledge is not very helpful to me.
I ask the House to bear with me because this is a House of Commons matter. It is not a party matter. It concerns every one of us in one way or another. At the start, I assure every hon. Member that I do not want to say anything that is offensive to anyone, and that
1440
I do not want to introduce a partisan note into my speech. I hope that in that respect others who take part in the debate will follow my example.
The first part of the Report concerns the Members' Fund. As a Member who is young in years, I am not one who will benefit from the recommendations contained in paragraph 38 (c) of the Committee's Report. The Committee recommends that service below the age of 40 ought not to be reckoned for pension and that no Member should qualify unless he has at least 10 years' service beyond the age of 45. I am 41 and I have been a Member of this House for the past eight years. If this part of the Report were to be accepted, I should lose seven years' membership and only my last year's service would qualify, but I would willingly sacrifice that if I felt that the adoption of this part of the Report would bring benefit to some of the older Members of this House.
It is surely a scandal that there are hon. Members who have given the best years of the latter part of their lives to the service of the House and who probably sacrificed pension rights when they came here but who, when they leave this House because of ill-health or because of the fortunes of a General Election or the action of a Boundary Commission, have to prove what is tantamount to abject poverty before they can apply for benefit from the Fund. I say, very modestly, that I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here, because I feel that I could appeal to him in this matter. He is perhaps our greatest House of Commons man. He loves this House and all that it means and all its traditions. Whether one differs from him politically or not, one acknowledges that fact. He must be grieved to think that some hon. Members are in this plight. I hope very much that he will use his important influence in this matter.
I say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House as a whole that if we dismiss this part of the Report and say that we shall not deal with the Members' Fund, the problem will come back again and again until it is finally resolved. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is here. I am sure that he would agree, and that all parties would say, that it is right and proper that industry should

1441
provide good pension rights to employees. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Labour would do all that they could to encourage that trend in industry, but what a poor example we set in this House in dealing with the problem of older Members when we make certain that they are in abject poverty before they can apply for a grant from the Members' Fund. As a young Member who cannot hope to benefit from this part of the Report at this stage, and in fact would lose by it, I welcome the recommendation very much. I hope that we shall not adopt the attitude that this is not very important. It is important, and the least that we can do is to support our older Members.
The next part of the Report relates to expenses that are paid to Members. It can be rightly said that this Report was a best-seller when it was published. There can be very few Members who have not read it. I say quite frankly that Roger Bannister had nothing on me when it came to obtaining a copy of this Report, because I was so anxious to know what it had done and why. The Report has had a great deal of Press publicity. That is as it should be, because this is a matter that concerns the country as much as it concerns us. In addition, the Report has been mentioned on the radio and on television, and there can hardly be a man or woman in this country who is not informed on the subject.
As to Press reaction, I shall not quarrel with any part of the Press. It has every right to say what it likes. A free Press is one of the essentials of democracy. We have a free Press at liberty to say whatever it wants. Some parts of the Press thought that the Report was very good indeed and that it was high time that what it recommended was carried out. Other parts of the Press did not think very much of it. It thought that these were very poor recommendations.
In spite of the enormous publicity given to this Report, I, and I understand the vast majority of hon. Members, never received a single letter from a constituent expressing an opinion one way or the other. I was told that one hon. Member had received a large postbag on the subject. I approached him and he told me that his total postbag was three, one in favour and two against. Perhaps
1442
that would be a large postbag in comparison with what other hon. Members received. I also attended some public meetings, two of which were of the "Any Questions" type, and I was not asked a single question on the subject. I want to be perfectly fair on this matter, but 1 do make the point that it is usual, when there is great disagreement over a subject among the public, to find it reflected in our postbags.
After the publication of the Report, I took it upon myself to discuss it with many hon. Members on both sides of the House. I propose to deal with what I regard as the four major objections to the Report that I have heard. The first, made by some hon. Members, was that we should not have had a Committee composed of our fellow Members to make these proposals and that the job should have been done by an outside body. Speaking purely for myself, I would have preferred it to have gone to an outside body. The Members of the Select Committee had a very difficult task. Speaking as a trade unionist, and one familiar with trade union negotiations since the age of 14, I feel that one of the things that would have impressed an outside body when considering this matter would have been that part of the terms of reference relating to the practice of Commonwealth and foreign Parliaments. What I think would have impressed an outside body is what is paid to members of other Parliaments.
Comparing like with like, as I think any outside body would have done, and certainly as is done in the trade union movement in trying to arrive at a fair rate for the job, I am convinced that an outside body would have recommended very much higher expenses payments to hon. Members than have been suggested by our Committee. That is only a personal opinion and I may be wrong, but I would remind the House that even if we had had an outside body discussing this matter and coming to conclusions, its report would have come back for consideration on the Floor of this House. We would still have had this debate on the report of an outside committee because, as the Keeper of the Queen's Purse, we would have had to decide whether extra money should be paid to hon. Members for expenses.

1443
The second point is that this is a matter which should not be decided now but should be deferred until after the next General Election. It is said that this Government and this House have no mandate and, therefore, should not implement any increase for hon. Members until the electorate has had a chance of discussing the matter and expressing its views. I can quite understand hon. Members saying that, and I want to call in aid the words of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, when he was Prime Minister in 1937. I shall not bore the House with a long quotation. He was introducing a Motion to increase hon. Members' expenses payments from £400 to £600. At that time there was an Amendment which asked that the matter should be deferred until after the next General Election. I think the House would agree that Mr. Chamberlain's words are pertinent today. He said:
"… I notice on the Order Paper an Amendment the effect of which would be to postpone the operation of the increased salary until after another General Election. I perfectly understand the feelings which have prompted some of my hon. and right hon. Friends to put their names to an Amendment of that kind, but I am bound to say that I cannot myself see why, if it is right to alter the salary from £400 to £600 because £400 is not enough, it is not right to do it now rather than wait for another two or three years. There is another consideration. Is it really advisable that an issue of this kind, so readily open to misrepresentation, so difficult to consider in a judicial atmosphere, as it ought to be considered, should be decided in the hurly-burly of a General Election?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June. 1937; Vol. 325, c. 1052–53.]
The late Mr. Neville Chamberlain, in a very fine speech, dismissed the Amendment, which was put to the vote and heavily defeated.
I think it would be unwise to defer this until after a General Election. In my constituency I understand that at the next General Election I shall have a Liberal and a Conservative opponent. We may well all three agree in our election manifestos to advocate an increase in the payment for Members' expenses. Will the House tell me how the electors of a constituency like mine are supposed to vote when the three candidates all say the same thing? I cannot believe that the people of this country would vote for Brown or Smith merely because he offered his services more cheaply.
1444
Those who advocate that the matter should be left to the electorate do a great injustice to our people. They belittle the intelligence of our people. Our people are an adult people and they understand matters, and at a General Election they expect to be asked to vote on the major issues and the big differences between the great parties. I therefore hope that the suggestion that the matter be deferred until after a General Election will be opposed.
The next point which has been made, and which is important, is that we ought to alter the method of conducting our business in this House before we talk of increasing the payment for expenses. This afternoon we are very much like the members of the Select Committee, as our job is to talk about what we are doing now, not about what may be done tomorrow. It may be that a future Government may decide to set up a Select Committee to consider the way in which the House should conduct its business. The argument may be that there should be many more people doing part-time work. I do not want to quarrel with those who feel that the business of the House should be part-time, but that question is a matter for a future committee to consider, and not a matter on which this Select Committee was asked to express an opinion.
On the question of part-time employment, I would point out that we are a broad section of the community. For example, we have miners here. If there are to be facilities for part-time work for all hon. Members, is the Minister of Works to do something about making a coalmine in Parliament Square? We might have some pithead baths behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. The suggestion is as ludicrous as that. How can one expect a middle-aged miner, who has come into the House on the expression of good will of his people, to follow that employment part-time? The truth is that this House to a very large extent will have to rely on many who in fact give their full time to the House. I am not anxious to get involved in that argument, but that is my personal opinion. It may be that a committee of the future will show how part-time could be done, but we should leave it to that committee and not get bogged down on that question when considering what we should do today.

1445
The last point of substance which I have heard—and it is the biggest point of all—is the question of outside claims; that is to say, that there are certain sections of the community who have a greater claim on the sympathy of this House than can be claimed for ourselves. I come straight to the point because, whatever faults I have, I hope that I do not lack courage. There are the old-age pensioners. I made a speech in this House a few weeks ago in which I said that something should be done for them. I believe that something has to be done for them in the very near future, because their plight is very difficult.
But in every one of these debates—in 1911, in 1937 and in 1946—the same argument was applied: that there were people outside who had a claim to our support and sympathy. Taken to its logical conclusion, that argument would mean that no hon. Member ought to have an increase in his expenses payment until all those outside claims have been met. The answer would be that for payment of hon. Members' expenses no time is the right time.
Again, to take it to its logical conclusion, the trade union movement would have no right to make claims on behalf of its members for increased wages and we would have no right to give judges an increase, no right to apply the Danckwerts award to the doctors or to give retired Army officers an increase. If this House did not give any increase to Members on the basis that people ouside ought to get something, I do not believe that would give any satisfaction to those people.
I cannot believe that any old-age pensioner in my constituency would go to bed tonight feeling happier because his Member of Parliament had not got an increase for expenses. I believe that each and every case has to be argued on its merits. If there were legislation in this House for an increase for the old-age pensioners, there is no hon. Member who would not vote for that, as all of us hope that their claims will be met speedily and soon. But that does not deny the fact that a case has been made for an increase for hon. Members.
Recently we have read in the Press that the Chancellor may suggest a payment to hon. Members for lodgings, that
1446
is to say, for the hotel expenses of hon. Members who, in order to do their Parliamentary business, have to stay at hotels. Let me say this to my hon. Friends who may well benefit from such a suggestion. I am a London Member. I am married and have four children. I will admit freely that were I in the position of some of my hon. Friends who represent provincial constituencies, and had, in addition to my present expenses, to bear the cost of staying at an hotel four nights a week, I should give notice that I would not be standing as a candidate at the next General Election. I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government not to introduce any scheme which would have the effect of discriminating between hon. Members, and I will give my reasons.
I have referred to my own position. It may well be that, although they come to London and have to stay for four nights a week in an hotel, some of my hon. Friends who represent provincial constituencies may be married but have no children. At the end of the week they would be a little better off—not very much—than, say, myself as a London Member.
Then there is the case of other hon. Members representing provincial constituencies who live in London. When I use the word "provincial," I am also, of course, referring to constituencies North of the Border. Those hon. Members cannot afford the expense of keeping two homes; but when they go to their constituencies, as they do regularly, they have to pay hotel expenses, which is also an added burden. I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that by introducing any scheme which would discriminate between one hon. Member and another he would create a great deal of regret and resentment in this House. I understand that the purpose of this debate is to enable the right hon. Gentleman to "collect the voices" and I hope that he will recognise the importance of the point I have just made.
I now wish to refer to the Parliamentary Secretaries, and I call in aid the words of the Leader of the House—I am sorry he has left the Chamber—in a speech in 1946. I have made a number of rough speeches in this House and the right hon. Gentleman, too, has contributed his share, but this speech of his was a good

1447
one. Speaking of junior Ministers, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"I do not know if it is a matter of general knowledge, but anyhow hon. Gentlemen can take it from some of us who know about these things that there have been, in the course of years, a number of occasions when hon. Members of this House have been proposed by their leaders for office in junior ranks, and found1 themselves unable to accept because they were either professionally engaged or engaged in business, and at the time were perhaps paying for the education of their children, or looking after somebody, or had some family responsibilities. Because of the fact that they would have to take office"—
and here the right hon. Gentleman gave figures—
"and give up all other sources of income, they were unable to contemplate the change."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 1300–1.]
The right hon. Gentleman said that in 1946, and it is equally true today. I think that it ought to be put on record that hon. Gentlemen who accept office make tremendous sacrifices. We ought not to be ashamed of saying it. They have made quite considerable sacrifices, but evidently this House does not recognise that fact too well, and I think that something ought to be done for them.
I do not know the position of Her Majesty's Government in the matter, but I think it would be fair to assume that they may well have difficulty in getting what they regard as their most able men to do the most important work. I was a Parliamentary private secretary to three Ministers in the Labour Government and I know something of the work which falls upon both junior and senior Ministers. It is a full-time job. Having said all those nice things about Parliamentary Secretaries, may I hope that in future I shall obtain from some of them better replies to my letters?
As we all know, the work of a Member of Parliament is not confined to this House. I wish that the Press would be a little more considerate about that, and, on occasions when it has the space to do so, would tell the people in the country that our work is not confined to this House. For most of us the end of the Parliamentary week means the start of our real work outside. When we get what have been described in the Press as the long Recesses—newspapers have a right to describe them as long Recesses— for many of us it means very long and
1448
arduous periods of duty in our constituencies, attending meetings and so on, and doing the work which we could not do while Parliament was sitting. There are not many hon. Members who, for example, can spend the Summer Recess on the south coast of France having a wonderful time. Since I have been a Member of Parliament, a trip to Margate has been as much as I could hope for. These things have all to be said and the position made perfectly clear.
To strike a serious note, one thing about the job of a Member of Parliament which is not often realised is the tremendous sacrifice made so far as family life is concerned. It may be said, "All right, you took the job and you have to put up with it." We all knew the position when we accepted office, but we did so because of our desire to serve the people of this country in what we considered to be the best possible way. However, there is no harm in mentioning that great sacrifices are made by hon. Members in that regard.
When the hurly-burly of the General Election is over and we are returned to this House, we represent all our constituents. We do not discriminate between the people who seek our assistance; we do not ask them what are their politics or their religion. We all know that what might be termed our "case work" has grown tremendously. It may be argued that it is wrong for a Member of Parliament to act as a welfare officer, but for my part I am honoured and glad if I can be of service to ordinary people. I like to think that one great thing about our job is that at times we have the key to open a door which might otherwise be barred to ordinary people. None of us objects to this part of our work; indeed we are glad and anxious to do it.
I wish to pay a tribute to some hon. Members of this House with whom I discussed the Report and who happen to have private incomes, so that they will not be greatly affected. I was impressed by the fact that the majority of them are for this Report one hundred per cent. Their attitude is, "While it will not benefit me particularly, if some of my colleagues are in difficulty—and this Select Committee Report has shown that they are—something should be done for them." I wish to express my thanks to those hon. Members.

1449
There is one other point I wish to make, and in doing so I quote the words of Mr. David Lloyd George, as he then was, who, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1911, introduced the payment of £400 to Members of Parliament. He said:
"When we offer £400 a year as payment to Members of Parliament it is not a recognition of the magnitude of the service, it is not a remuneration, it is not a recompense, it is not even a salary. It is just an allowance, and I think the minimum allowance, to enable men to come here, men who would render incalculable service to the State, and whom it is an incalculable loss to the State not to have here, but who cannot be here because their means do not allow it. It is purely an allowance to enable us to open the door to great and honourable public service to these men, for whom this country will be all the richer, all the greater, and all the stronger for the unknown vicissitudes which it has to face by having here to aid us by their counsel, by their courage, and by their resource."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th August, 19–11; Vol. XXIX, c. 1383.]
I believe that those words were right then, and they are right today. Not one of us here is asking for payment for expenses which would mean that people outside would wish to become Members of Parliament merely because the salary was attractive. That is not what we want.
We set up a Select Committee because many of us were convinced that the expenses which we were getting to do the job for which we had been elected were not enough. The Government generously set up that Committee. The Committee did a fine job of work. It gave a lot of attention to the matter, it had a great number of meetings, and it came to conclusions which are in print for the whole of Britain to see. I believe that we should be lacking courage if we did not admit, frankly, freely and honestly, and tell all our people, that this Report is an honest and honourable Report, and we should not hesitate to apply its implications.
4.11 p.m.
Mr. W. F. Deedes: I am sure that whether or not we agree in detail with all that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said, the whole House will be grateful to him for the very fair and temperate manner, and the very entertaining manner, in which he presented the case. He has been very fair indeed, and I shall try at least to follow him in that respect.
1450
The hon. Member said this was not a party matter, and I think that is right. I believe that we shall find in the course of the debate that there is not so much a division of political opinion as a diversity of personal opinion. That was the case in 1911, when this issue was first debated as a matter of principle, and it was the case in 1937, when the increment was agreed.
Since this is a matter of personal opinion, and since personal opinion is inseparable from personal circumstances, I think it is a proper preliminary to declare my interest; and, as one of the professional journalists in the House, I think it is right to admit that among those in the House who seek to combine Parliamentary and professional work, the journalist may be counted among the more fortunate. It is very easy to declare, as a matter of principle, that all back benchers should have interests outside the House, if one happens to be fortunate enough to be able to pursue them; but I most certainly do not say that, nor do I imply it, as a universal rule.
It seems to me that it is healthy that there should be a number of hon. Members here with outside interests, but it is not necessary, nor even desirable, that all should have outside interests. I take the point which the hon. Member for Bermondsey made about the reliance which we put on those Members who can give the whole of their time to the service of this House, particularly in morning Committees, with which we are all acquainted. I am always sorry to hear, and I emphatically reject, the line of those people who say that it is up to Members who come to this place to fend for themselves and provide for themselves or get out. I reject that, and I think I speak for the majority of the House in doing so.
Most of this question centres around those who are wholly, or almost wholly, dependent upon their Parliamentary salaries, and whether or not that salary is adequate to meet their requirements and the proper execution of their duty. The second factor which bears very heavily upon our outlook—and whatever any of us may say, it does bear upon our outlook—is public opinion outside the House. It is much better to be frank about this. After all, public opinion is our business. We are all sensitive to it, whatever we may say in the House. If

1451
we were not sensitive to it, we should not be here.
It is fair to say that if public opinion has not taken an unfavourable attitude to the Report of the Select Committee, it has perhaps taken a less favourable attitude than some hoped before and after the Select Committee reported. It is very difficult to weigh accurately the weight of public opinion on this matter. Certainly there are no party lines. The hon. Member was quite right; I think my own experience is that letters on the subject passing between Members and their constituents have been very few and references to it at public meetings have again been very few.
Nevertheless, I think there is a deep feeling in many quarters which may be expressed in these words, "M.P.S ought not to vote themselves more money." I put it in that sentence. I think it is an expression of public opinion. I do not seek to exaggerate it, but it is there, it is in all our constituencies, and in my opinion it should be respected.
I would go further. I think that if we are concerned, as indeed we all are concerned, with the prestige of this place, we should think not only in terms of whether we may become personally vulnerable but whether we may become collectively less well thought of. That is where public opinion in this matter weighs, and weighs heavily. I confess that this consideration has made it difficult for me, at any rate, to reach a cool judgment on this issue, and I confess that that is why I should be very sorry to see steps taken without a greater effort to win public understanding—to win greater public understanding than there is now—of the problems which are before us.
I am most reluctant to criticise any part of the Report for which the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and his colleagues were responsible. They had a most difficult job—a job which very few of us would have liked to undertake; and I think they produced a very good Report. In any case, it is easy to be wise after the event. But looking back over the rivers of ink which have been spilled since that Report appeared, I am bound to say that I have one regret. This will not meet with the agreement
1452
of all hon. Members, but I will explain why I say it. I regret that the figure of £1,500 was mentioned in that Report, and I will explain exactly why.
There were two figures, to my thinking, of significance in the Report. One was that the average expenses of a Member of Parliament today are £750 a year. The other figure was the recommendation for £1,500 a year. In these matters, the public mind very often has room for only one idea, for one figure; and it is the figure of £1,500 and not the figure of £750 which has become, I think, unfortunately, the talking point in this country. The figure of £750 has been largely ignored and the discussions which I have heard and the discussions which I have seen in the public Press—
Mr. Spencer Summers: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this figure of £750 would never have arisen had it not been that large numbers of Members had the means to spend more than their salary so as to enable that average of £750 to be spent?
Mr. Deedes: I think that my hon. Friend has a point there, but I do not want to leave the point I am on now, because I go from what I have said to this: the conclusions which led the Select Committee to that figure, and that figure in itself, were to my way of thinking the new and significant features of their Report. They are the features which I think should have been stressed, and which deserve to be stressed, more than they have been stressed. I think we would have found ourselves in less difficulty today had public opinion been focused on that point. We would have been more likely to have aroused a sympathetic echo outside this place to the suggestion which has been made that something should be done.
It is that figure of £750 which I should like to see squarely laid before the bar of public opinion, because there is a certain amount of hypocrisy about considering that figure, there is a certain amount of dodging. I, of course, respect public opinion in what it has said, but let me add this: public opinion has not faced the situation created by that figure and by the Report of the Select Committee upon it. It has not had to do so. It has contented itself with the much simpler task of arguing the merits or demerits of giving a Member of Parliament more or less, £1,500 a year.

1453
Let me say one word more about this problem of £750 as the average expenses of Members. It is a genuine figure as the Select Committee said and as we all know within our personal experience. How has his figure arisen? I believe that it has arisen—and I see no reason why we should sing small about this— because of the amount of work which has now become inseparable from the duties of a Member of Parliament. The halcyon days when this was a club and was treated as a club, when appearances—as the old Division lists show—were usually infrequent and needed to be only infrequent, when a Member, by paying £1,000 a year to his constituency, could get away with one visit there each year —those halcyon days have gone. It is a good thing, too. Just before this debate I was handed a note about a silver porringer in the collection of the plate of a certain borough, which bore this inscription:
"Presented by Colonel H—, having represented this borough for 25 years in Parliament, and amassed a great fortune."
I think that speaks for itself, but happily those days have gone. To my way of thinking, there is nothing to be ashamed of in the fact that they have gone. It is nothing which one should regret, least of all the electorate.
The growth, during wartime and in the aftermath, of Government Departments and the dependence of individuals upon them, has opened up, as the hon. Gentleman opposite said, a vast new field of duties for Members of Parliament. I do not like, any more than he does, the term "welfare officer." It is a false term. It is true that a Member of Parliament acts as a liaison between his constituents and Government Departments, and also as a lubricant between his constituents and the very heavy machinery of government. None of us should grudge those duties, the toil which they involve or the toll which they may take of our health. We enjoy doing them, or we should not be here, but the public should not expect the cost of those duties to fall wholly and solely upon Members of Parliament.
The issue is not whether or not Members of Parliament are worth £1,000 or £1,500 more or less. It is not for us to decide what our true worth is now, before or after a General Election. The issue is whether the cost of this profession, as it has now become, should be borne wholly
1454
by Members of Parliament or not, and, if not, whether legitimate expenses should be reimbursed. I can almost hear a voice saying, "Oh, but there are Income Tax allowances." Let us face the point. Let us take a Member of Parliament who receives £1,000 a year, all tax-free; very few of us do, but there may be one or two. Deduct £600—not £750—as the cost of incidental expenses, and the Member is left with—I think it is better to refer to it in terms of pounds per week—the sum of £8 per week. Would anyone argue that that is an adequate salary for a representative in this House?
Of course, there is a certain sensitiveness about expenses. I notice that the point was made by the Select Committee that there should be no privileges for this or any other profession in respect of expenses, but having said that, it is surely not right that this profession should be denied the rights in respect of expenses which other professions enjoy? If I may take one single example in respect of subsistence, there is, in fact, no civil servant, no professional man, no trade unionist for whom it is not proper to charge expenses when he is living away from home on duties incurred in connection with his business.
There will be much argument about what legitimate expenses should be, how they may be incurred, what they should be and into which category they should go. I have no desire to shirk that matter of detail, but, on the other hand, I hope we shall not become involved today in a welter of detail as to exactly how this should be worked out. In this preliminary discussion, I hope we shall not get ourselves bogged down in a welter of Income Tax and expenses law. I have no idea whether it is best to do it individually, collectively or by means of geographical categories, but I do not want to enter into that, because I am anxious that we do not miss the wood for the trees.
It is surely not beyond the wit of man to devise a formula here which is not only just, but which is seen to be just by people outside this House. I hope I may add this. If a formula is discovered, I hope it will be a formula to which all hon. Members will feel they can subscribe, because it would be most damaging to this place if it were to lead to some hon. Members to strike attitudes—no

1455
doubt with the most honourable intentions—or to make themselves different from the rest. That would be invidious and unfortunate, and we should seek to avoid it.
May I add a word or two to what was said by the hon. Gentleman opposite in respect of Ministers, and not only junior Ministers, but Cabinet Ministers as well? I hope that they will be treated with the rest in anything which may be done. It is an absolutely indefensible assumption that Ministers are privileged. They have not got the private means which many of them had in days gone by, and in this field the electors of this country get government on the cheap, and they have done so for a very considerable time.
Mr. Gladstone, who in this matter of public money was the soul of honour, received for the greater part of his career one salary and a half; that is, £7,500 a year, which, by current values, amounted to about £30,000. I am not saying that he did not earn it, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer draws—and indeed, the first Chancellor of the Exchequer drew— £4,000. After tax is deducted—Surtax and Income Tax—we must subtract the cost of his Parliamentary duties in excess of the £500 which he receives in respect of his Parliamentary salary—which is a maximum of £500. In respect of Parliamentary Secretaries, the same figure applies. [Interruption.]I stand corrected. My right hon. Friend does not even get half his Parliamentary salary as the junior Ministers do. That is absolutely wrong, and quite indefensible. It should be remedied.
I say that, as matters stand, there is hardship here on both sides. I happened to be here in 1937, in a different capacity, when this matter was first discussed. I remember the discussions that took place then, when there was hardship, and how it was remedied. There was hardship in 1937 not only because of the value of the £ and the increased cost of living, but there was hardship principally because then, already, there had begun a fundamental—one might almost say historic— change in the role of a Member of Parliament. The role of a Member of Parliament, from being a sinecure, if they chose to make it so, had become a job of work
1456
without the option, and that process has continued with the years quite relentlessly. Is anybody going to argue that it is now less honourable, less worthy or less dignified than it was before.
I think it is right—and the hon. Gentleman opposite made a point if this—that we should be prepared to make sacrifices in many fields—in time, leisure, family life, recreations, holidays and even professions—all these things—and even to take risks. I must confess that I do not accept what the Select Committee recommended in respect of pensions, but those sacrifices should not entail penury, for two reasons. The first is because for the family man that penury is not a simple, personal sacrifice; it may bear very harshly on what is naturally every father's dearest wish. Secondly, it is detrimental to the efficient conduct of our duties if we are subject to penury and the anxiety which is inseparable from it.
To conclude, I am painfully aware that it is not difficult to stand here and deliver generalisations on this subject. The task of the Government is much harder, and it is fair to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is the Government who will have to reach the final decision on this matter and who will be ultimately responsible. Those who say that there is no politics in this matter—not necessarily in respect of today's debate only—are deluding themselves. Inevitably, this subject is inseparable from politics. Whatever the solution, this is combustible material, and I should like to be as blunt as was the hon. Gentleman opposite. It is combustible material because we on this side of the House have not done the things which hon. Gentlemen opposite asked us to do. It is as well to face that, and not to delude ourselves by thinking that the circumstances are different.
It is the Government who have the rough end of the stick and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will have to face it. I am not making heavy weather about it, but it is right gently to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is so. If the Government care to take action they may well get the gratitude of the Opposition but they will not increase the gratitude of the electors towards them. For a Government with a majority of this kind, it would be a quixotic act. That has to be acknowledged.
The Government have to consider, however, not only their own health but the

1457
health of this assembly. We are living in an iconoclastic age. If the Government decide to take action they will have need of all the help they can get from hon. Members opposite, not only now but afterwards, and both inside and outside this House as well. That will be the test, the acid test, of one of those arts of government which we have for so long taught the world to apply and which we must now teach some of the people of this country more sympathetically to understand.
4.32 p.m.
Mr.. Frank Bowles: We have had two first-class speeches. I hope that nothing I say will in any way lower the tone of the debate, which may in due course turn out to show the House of Commons at its best.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that it is very difficult indeed to weigh public opinion. Nobody can pretend to do so, and that is why we have General Elections.] have been very surprised at the attitude of some Conservative friends of mine on this subject. Some of them immediately said, "I thoroughly agree with the proposed pensions scheme." I do not propose to speak for too long, but I would give examples that I have come across in my capacity as trustee of the Members' Fund and to give some idea of the results of the poverty of hon. Members.
First I would quote what the Prime Minister said in a statement to this House:
"There is no doubt … that a number of hon. Members are oppressed by serious difficulties because heavy and necessary expenses absorb so much of the Parliamentary salary.'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1954; Vol. 526, c. 1151.]
In saying that, the Prime Minister has given us the case as to the poverty of some hon. Members, although there are other hon. Members who do not alter their standard of life because they are here. If any hon. Member in this House is in that unfortunate and oppressed situation through no fault of his own-not through gambling or any of the vices which might cause him to be in a state of depression—the position is made out, and it is very serious indeed.
From conversations that I have had with hon. Members, I know that the figure of £5 which the Select Committee
1458
gave as the average that hon. Members had at the end of their week is a good deal too high. It is nothing like that. A large number of Members, as has already been admitted, are in that position. The Select Committee did not dare to publish some of the examples that it came across. It thought the public would not believe the poverty of some hon. Members of this House. I happen to know that a disquieting number of hon. Members on both sides are "subbing" against their next month's salary. That is a shocking situation, and there is no question but that it is true.
There are other hon. Members, and I am one of them, who have been lucky and are lucky now in their financial situation. Some have been lucky or clever in the choice of their parents, others have been lucky or more clever in the choice of wealthy wives. Good luck to them. I am making an appeal to them. I do not say that any of them have taken a difficult attitude on this question, but there is a feeling about that some of those hon. Members oppose the recommendation of the Select Committee which was presided over by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). Let them never forget their luck by birth, marriage or in some other way. Let them acknowledge their luck when they are considering the poverty, difficulty and financial oppression of Parliamentary duties experienced by some of their colleagues in this place.
This Mother of Parliaments may very well be the most influential Parliament in the world, but it must be able to work properly. One of the things about which I think everybody agrees is that it must have a good Opposition. There are probably more hon. Members in the Labour Party who are wholly dependent upon their incomes from this House than there are on the Government side. I remember thinking that, as a leading article in "The Times" said, if there should be an increase in Members' salaries it would make hon. Members a little more dependent on the Whips. My experience in the Select Committee is that the greater the poverty of a Member of Parliament the greater is his dependence upon the Whips.
Mr. Robson Brown: Absolutely correct.
Mr. Bowles: I am glad to get that support. I am sure there must be social and sometimes financial pressure upon hon. Members on the Government side. Hon. Members on that side of the House may feel: "We must be very careful how we behave in this matter. We may damage the party, or we may lose our seats." I have seen hon. Members jump to attention at that, because that is a most natural fear.
The hon. Member for Ashford pointed out that Members who are married and have children are not standing just on their own legs. They have a responsibility to wives and children. People who are Members of Parliament sometimes take on greater financial responsibility. They come to London and perhaps send their children to more expensive schools than they otherwise would have done. They become more dependent than otherwise upon the support of the Whips.
We cannot help it. Those are the facts of life. The longer I remain in this House the less I understand the workings, not of procedure, but of conscience and matters of that kind. Sometimes a Member is asked: "Are you standing at the next Election?" How often the answer is: "I cannot afford to retire." That is a consequence of people being too poor to retire. This place has become a prison for Members like that. They have to stay here, whether they are ill or not, because they cannot afford to retire. The alternative is National Assistance. That is my experience. One hon. Member said that people know what they are in for when they stand for election, but the fact is that the cost of living has increased considerably, and £1,000 in 1946 is now worth £1,500. Therefore, hon. Members will be even less able to retire in 1955—or whenever the next Election is—than they would have been in 1950.
I am very honoured to be a trustee of the Members' Fund, and there one really does see the truth of the situation. I see the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) nodding his assent. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant), the chief Whip and myself, at our monthly meetings, have dealt with the sad plight of former Members of this House, who were
1460
highly respected and many of whom had been here for years. They have disappeared from the scene, or they have died. We get a tremendous number of these cases to deal with at each meeting, and no hon. Member who has not had the privilege to serve on that Committee has any idea of the terrible situation facing these people.
I think there is no doubt that hon. Members on this side of the House are worse off when they retire than hon. Members opposite. At least, that is the situation at the moment. Perhaps the next Labour Government will put that right. The present position is quite shocking. The information that we get at our monthly meetings about ex-Members or their widows is confidential. We have to apply an annual means test. Mr. Moyes, the Accountant of this House, who is also the Secretary of the Members' Fund Committee, has to ask former Members or their widows every year to fill in questionnaires and say what money they have, how much they have in the Post Office and in National Savings, the value of their house and so on.
Yesterday we had a case—I must not mention names—of a person who had been drawing £89 in National Assistance, and that was stopped last month. He came to us to see whether we could supplement that loss in his income. All that we are entitled to do under the Act which this House passed is to give him £60, so that that person's income has been reduced by £29 because, in a sense, he has come off National Assistance.
We had another case of a former Member of this House—he was a Member for many years—who had made an alteration in his shareholding and he was receiving £30 more a year. The result was that we had to reduce what he was getting because he had been financially clever on the Stock Exchange. If the result of his investment had been the other way, we should have had to give him more. In other words, we are also underwriting the speculation on the Stock Exchange of poor ex-Members of this House. They are certainly poor, or they would not come to us.
In the deliberations of the Select Committee, Mr. Moyes was asked this question by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Orbach):
"I do not know whether I can ask this, Mr. Chairman, but would it be right to say

1461
that Members of the Committee and you yourself, Mr. Moyes, find it is a little distasteful?—Well, I do not think so. I think we find it more harrowing."
I think I used the word "shocking," but there is no doubt that emotionally the feeling of sadness is quite deep.
I have referred to the devaluation of the £ and I have said that £1,500 now is worth £1,000 a year or two ago. In 1911 the salary was £400 a year. I beg the Chancellor to compare present-day taxation with taxation in 1911, when the salary was £400 a year. A salary of £400 in 1911 is worth about £1,495 today. But it was a great deal more valuable, because in giving these comparable figures I have not taken taxation into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ber-mondsey (Mr. Mellish) referred to the question that is asked: "Why cannot Members take part-time work?" Of course they cannot. He also commented that it is silly to talk about having coalmines in New Palace Yard, and so on. Take the case of a train driver. He cannot drive a train for two days a week. He has to do it for 50 weeks a year.
There have been letters and leading articles in "The Times" on this subject, and if the public do not understand the situation, I still blame the newspapers, because I think that if two clever people on "The Times," the editor and the writer of these articles—whether they are two different people or the same person, it does not matter—do not understand the recommendations or if they wilfully distort them, how can the public understand, and how can we weigh public opinion if the public are misled by a responsible newspaper like "The Times"?
We are doing here most responsible work, and it is a public service. There was the suggestion in "The Times" that if the job were made too attractive, people would try to make a career of it. I do not know what is meant by that. Who, when he gets a job worth £1,000 a year in ordinary life, expects to have to pay a third of it away for a secretary, or alternatively has to do all his writing in his own hand and keep no carbon copies? A third of one's salary is immediately spent in that way. Also, there is postage and so on. All these matters are well known. As I have said, the Committee stated that only £5 a week was left to many Members from their
1462
salaries, but I know that there are many cases much worse than that and that the Committee dare not publish those cases.
Mr. Aneurin Bevan: There is also this ironical situation, that the more active a Member is the more expenses he is likely to have.
Mr. Bowles: My right hon. Friend is usually ahead of me, but on this occasion I have got that point in my notes. I have written down "Poverty prevents activity." Suppose that a Member makes a speech on road safety or mental deficiency or something which appeals to a large number of people not only in his constituency but outside; he gets a large number of letters. He may get 500 letters, which is nothing very much. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West is one who gets 500 letters. If a Member acknowledges each one, it costs him l½d. each. [Interruption.]Hon. Members opposite look as if they do not acknowledge letters. I am talking of the acknowledgement, the card. It costs 1½d. to send it. Perhaps hon. Members opposite have always put a 2d. stamp on.
The matter is not dealt with in a sausage machine. It is considered, and no doubt hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price) and for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), send a considered reply which costs another 2½d. It costs Is. to deal with three letters. If a Member has 500 letters to deal with, it costs him well over £8 and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said, one cannot afford to do that very often. One's Parliamentary activity is restricted by one's financial inability to do the job properly. I think that is shocking.
To my mind, it is wrong that Members should be worried financially. They have enough to worry about preparing speeches and so on. They should not have to worry about the present financial conditions of themselves and their families as well as about old age. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a man of sympathy in this matter. It is well pointed out in the Select Committee's Report that many Members cannot afford to buy the right food. Good health is very important in this job. These Members are really all the time eating bulk feeder foods—I think that is the term—no filler foods. I gave them up two years

1463
ago, and I had forgotten the terms for them as well as what they taste like. The fact is that those Members are eating badly and their health is affected.
I hope it will be realised that this is a really serious matter. We should stand together in this matter, because all of us owe a duty to the Members who are "oppressed"— I quote the Prime Minister's term—financially by their Parliamentary duties. We also owe it to the dignity of the House.
I support the recommendations of the Select Committee in full. I think I am correct in saying that what the Select Committee implied was that hon. Members of this House ought to have a rise to £1,750. But as is described—I have forgotten whether it is in the part of the Report dealing with salaries or that dealing with non-contributory pensions— the position is that they have only recommended £1,500 with the other £250 going as a contribution to the pensions scheme. Therefore it is not a non-contributory scheme. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) seems to agree, and he was on the Committee. I am correct, am I?
The point is that this provision of £250 was out of what would have been an annual payment of £1,750. The Committee put the figure at £1,500 and recommended a pension, which can be called non-contributory, but all pensions are contributory. There cannot be such a thing as a non-contributory pension. Anything anybody spends on a contributory pension scheme comes from his employers. Obviously if a man is paid £5 a week and he is asked to pay £1 towards a pension scheme it still comes out of his wages. Under this recommendation the Government would pay £250 to what is called a non-contributory pension scheme and Members would receive a salary of £1,500.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: If I understand the position aright, the Select Committee's report tied together the pensions proposal with the salary proposal, so that each depended upon the other, and it would obviously be quite wrong, from their point of view, to consider whether one recommendation should be followed and not the other, because neither recommendation would have been made in that form but for the assumption that both would be accepted.
Mr. Bowles: I am sorry if I did not make that clear. That is what I am trying to say.
Mr. Clement Davies: Might I remind the hon. Gentleman that in paragraph 62 of the Select Committee's Report, after the reference to the
"much more generous arrangements existing overseas,"
there comes the phrase
"consider that in all the circumstances, and on the understanding that their recommendation, for a pension scheme is definitely linked with it, the increase should be …"
Mr. Bowles: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That is what I was trying to explain.
I may perhaps sum up the speech which I have been trying to make by quoting two short letters which I wrote to "The Times," the first one of which they published. I should like to have them both on the record. The first was as follows:
"In your leading article today on Members' Pay, there is a clear assumption that if the increase in pay and pension proposed were to come into farce it would attract the wrong type of M.P.—a person pursuing politics as a career. It is not easy to become an M.P. The aspirant, against many competitors, has to submit himself to the severe scrutiny of a selection conference."—
and I know that there are ex-Members who have been going round the country for a long time trying to get bade—[An HON. MEMBER: "And ex-Ministers."] Yes, and ex-Ministers too—
"and then if selected, he must be elected by the electors. So do not let us too readily assume that a person's ambition to enter Parliament is almost automatically achieved.
Your second objection is that the proposed pension would make Members cling to their seats and could become one of the strongest weapons in the hands of the Whips. Experience has shown that the reverse is the case. I have the honour to be one of the trustees of the Members' Fund and we all come away from each meeting heartbroken by what we hear of ex M.P.s or their widows' financial position. I do beg your readers to bear in mind that after years of service in the House, it is almost impossible to find employment and the poverty of many Members now is one of the Whips' strongest weapons.
Surely membership of the House is one of the most honourable ways of serving our fellows. Let the Members be honourably treated."
Perhaps I may draw the House's attention to the letter which was not published.

1465
I think it is the better one. "The Times" had a leading article, I think on 8th March, and with it they closed the correspondence. This is what I wrote:
"Sir,
You were good enough to print a letter from me on the 19th February. May I ask that privilege again?
In your leading article today you say the voluminous and deeply felt correspondence in 'The Times' shows the real difficulties presented by the Committee's proposals. It was your first leading article which bewildered so many readers by its apparent lack of grasp of the situation which led to this correspondence.
Now the financial position of some M.P.s is so bad that the Committee unanimously decided not to give the worst examples for fear the public would disbelieve them, but to give the average income after necessary expenses at £5 per week."
That is the average income.
"Your ready suggestion that the pension problem would be partially solved by M.P.s contributing a little more than the proposed £24 shows you don't appreciate that many just could not do it.
There has been much correspondence that some M.P.s don't need the rise."
This is a point for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
"A means test has been suggested. Direct taxation largely remedies this, A man with £6,000 per annum taxable income paying 9s. Income Tax plus 6s. Surtax would pay back £387 10s. of the proposed £500 rise."
I do not think we need concern ourselves too much about that. Those who do not need the money need not draw it. I thought an hon. Member opposite indicated that he did not want to have it, and anyone who wishes to do so can take that stand. Otherwise the Chancellor can take £387 10s. out of the £500 in the case of those with a taxable income of the figure I have stated. To continue my quotation:
"The main point is that poverty is curbing some M.P.s from giving their best service. If a Member makes a speech,"—
this is the point I was making earlier—
"say on mental deficiency, he might easily receive 500 letters. To acknowledge each costs l½d. and to send a considered reply 2½d. This would cost him over £8 and a great deal of work in giving each case proper attention. He cannot afford to do this very often.
You say that the problem of the Member who must maintain two homes can only be met, as at present, by claiming it as an expense against Income Tax. Here is a common sophistry. This expense comes out of his salary and is too often confused with a business man's expense allowance which does not come out of his salary.
1466
Finally, you suggest a solution might lie in reducing the demands on M.P.s' time. This will not solve the problem of the person whose only possible alternative employment must be a full week's work nearly 12 months a year. Those you obviously have in mind are not miners, engineers, etc. who are the people we should really be thinking about."
I am sorry to have occupied the time of the House so long, but I have not spoken here for some time, and I feel very strongly about this matter. I hope that my words will have an effect on the Government and on M.P.s who are wobbling at present on this issue, so that we can, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey said, do this quickly. His arguments about delay seemed to me to be quite right, and I beg hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider them carefully. I hope that I have not lowered the tone of what I have already said promises to be a first-class House of Commons debate. I thank hon. Members for listening to me.
5.0 p.m.
Sir Ian Fraser: I thought that the Select Committee earned the gratitude of the House by their work. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) opened the debate in a manner which we all commend. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that this is not a party but a personal matter. How do we feel about it as individuals and so far as we take a view about the duties and responsibilities of our fellows in this House?
Obviously we must all declare an interest, but this is such a personal matter that I may be allowed to go on record as answering a question which I know will be asked by many of my constituents and many friends of mine in the ex-Service world. The question is, "Why are you interested in this matter?" I want to say, though I say it with diffidence, that I am not interested to any great extent for myself, because I earn a very good living outside this House. When I entered the House of Commons 30 years ago I had only a very few hundred pounds a year and there were times when I had to bring a sandwich down to the House because I could not afford to pay for dinner. Therefore, I understand both aspects—the aspect of one who does not need a rise and the aspect of one who does.

1467
I have intervened because I am of opinion that a decision should be reached, and should be reached now. I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that public opinion is not properly guided in this matter. It is the responsibility of older Members of Parliament, of whom I count myself one, to try to help to make understood what we do, how we are placed and what we need. That is my excuse for speaking tonight.
My hon. Friend said that we must heed public opinion. It is my judgment that artisans and working-class people generally, getting good wages and who have had a considerable number of rises in the last few years, do not begrudge their Members of Parliament a rise in their salary or expenses, or whatever one likes to call it. It is my belief that businessmen understand perfectly that the payment here is inadequate for the services that are rendered and in view of the circumstances in which we work.
Who, then, is it who has reacted unfavourably? It is the large group of middle-class and retired people, people whose incomes have been gravely affected by the course of our affairs in the past 10 years, and who are so very much worse off than they were and who naturally blame their Members of Parliament. I do not think that because they feel like that we must accept an abrogation of our duty and responsibility. On the contrary, it lies upon us to explain the matter and to show what should be done, and then to justify what we have supported.
One hon. Member said—and many people outside have said it—that it is not a good thing to vote oneself money. This point has been put in various ways. The implication is that it is bad to vote oneself money; it is something one ought never to do. I fully agree that we ought not to do it if we can possibly help it. Much of our company law and much of our practice in corporations and in public life is based upon the principle that somebody else, not oneself, votes the money.
However, we are in the unfortunate position in which we must either avoid the duty of doing what is right for Parliament or, in doing what is right, we must do something for ourselves. Let it
1468
not be said of us that we are doing this for ourselves. We are doing it for Parliament, because we want this Parliament to work well and we want future Parliaments to work well and to attract people to come to render their various services.
Therefore I say that it is right in all the circumstances that the Commons House of Parliament which controls the nation's finances should make its decision in this matter. It cannot be right that we should decide "no" and wrong that we should decide "yes" unless we decide on the merits. The people who jeer at us because we are voting for ourselves miss the whole point that it is our responsibility. It is one which we cannot escape and which we ought to be willing to undertake.
I do not know what view my constituents will take about this question. I shall report to them as quickly as I can. It is my guess that if the matter is put properly to my constituency by myself, or by the chairman of my association or leading figures there, they will be very willing to pay me £1,500 a year. They might be willing to pay me £2,000 a year. I do not think that they would be so ready to pay that to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but we should not expect that of them.
On the other hand, I am sure that the electors of many constituencies in the valleys of Wales and in West Yorkshire would be only too pleased to increase the pay of their Members of Parliament. Let us not fear an adverse public reaction if only we have the courage to explain the matter properly.
I pass to another form of criticism. In Caxton Hall a few weeks ago I addressed a meeting of 400 or 500 ex-Servicemen, members of the British Legion, gathered for the purpose of hearing an address at the end of their campaign to ask for larger war pensions. I was the speaker. We had questions, and one question I had to answer was, "Would not it be a shame if Members of Parliament voted themselves more money before our war pensions are put up?" I am President of the British Legion, and that was the question I had to answer. Many of us may have to answer it again. Perhaps I shall have to answer it at our annual conference at Whitsuntide.

1469
It seems to me that the answer is that in Britain we have to have a good Parliament which works smoothly and well. We have to have a good judiciary which works smoothly and well and a good Civil Service. We have to have our public servants, wherever they serve in the sphere of public life. We have to make the conditions under which they work such that they will attract the right people to the job in all classes and from all classes, so that it will be possible for these organs of Government to operate properly.
It is just as right that the terms and conditions under which these different folks work shall be properly considered and dealt with on their merits as it is right that a newspaper should raise its price for the issue which it sells to the reader, or that any other commodity or service should be increased in price when the costs which are involved in the production of it go up. Conditions have changed and therefore there is now a case for considering a change in the remuneration, or expenses allowance, of Members of Parliament.
To my mind, it is just as simple as that. If we were to say that those who are responsible for the machinery of Government—Members of Parliament, the judges, the Civil Service and all the rest-were not to be remunerated until this or that class of electors were satisfied, then we should never raise the salary of any of our public servants. It is certain that the voters will never be wholly satisfied. Therefore it seems to me that we must take a view which is different from that of the man who says, "Would not it be a shame if they got their money first?" These are separate and distinct subjects. It may well be a matter for argument whether this or that aspect of our Welfare State should have the highest priority, but the first priority is that the organs of Government should operate properly and efficiently.
The argument about part-time work has been covered by other speakers, and I shall not elaborate on it, except to say that in my opinion the great variety of Members in this House is one of the sources of its strength. That some should devote the whole of their time and studies to Parliamentary matters is a good thing. That others belong to the professions or are in business or local life and earn a
1470
living in some other way is a good thing. That variety should be maintained. We do not want a situation in which we have persons all of one kind or class or from one strata of society devoting all their time to this job. That would be very greatly to weaken the prestige and the representative quality of Parliament.
Though I do not wish to dwell upon the aspect of hardship, it is within my personal knowledge that a great many colleagues—hon. Friends of mine on both sides of the House—have not had the means decently and adequately to do the job which the electors have sent them to do in this House.
I have thought a lot about the variations proposed. I think that the simplest way to do the job is to give the rise which the Select Committee itself suggested. It is justified by the economic facts. It is one of those measures which takes account of all the differences amongst us, because it leaves each of us to spend the money in the way that best helps the job along.
I am sure that it would be a mistake to have Members of Parliament filling in forms, "clocking-in" on the job—coming here because if they did not come on a particular day for a particular hour they would not get so many guineas. That would be to lower their value and the respect in which the House is held, and it would make many of our attendances here quite "phoney" We may as well be honest with our constituents and say that very often we do not stay here when we do not have to. Why should we? He must be a lunatic who does. To have to come to the House and clock in to get a couple of guineas seems to me to be beneath contempt. On the other hand, it is better to have them than to be poor.
It has been suggested that this matter should be referred to the electors. It cannot be referred to the electors. I have thought about that most seriously, because I should have liked to have felt that someone else was to decide it. I do not see how it could be done. If it is left to the next General Election what will happen? There may be one or two—of whom I am one—who would dare to put it in his election address. But why would I dare? Because I have a majority of 17.800.

1471
I would not have put it in my election address 30 years ago when I was fighting for a seat and scraped in by 700 votes. Had I done so I might have lost the odd vote from the odd person. How therefore are we to submit this to the voters? That is quite impossible. We have to face the fact that we must decide this, and we must not be blamed or sneered at for doing what many of us believe to be a proper duty.
The situation of old Members who dare not and cannot retire and who have to bring their harrowing stories to the Members' Private Committee is very serious. I would not rule out the possibility of making some far more generous and properly regulated provision for them. I think also that the Parliamentary Secretaries should be dealt with in this regard, and so should the Ministers. I do not think either are adequately paid.
We in this House are a corporate body. We are not only some 625 individuals, but are part of a House with a tremendous tradition and a tremendous feeling. Men sometimes enter this House determined to pull down its pillars. They do not stay long before they are its strongest supporters. We are like officers at their mess, and there ought to be a degree to which we are thinking and operating and working all for one and one for all. We must have our differences. Outside of those differences we can, from this Mother of Parliaments, make a tremendous contribution to good will, good feeling and good spirit amongst all classes in the community. It is important that we should begin amongst ourselves.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. David Grenfell: I would first like to pay a tribute to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). I have known him in this House and have noticed that he is a man of exceedingly good taste. Never was that good taste better displayed than this afternoon. I have never heard a speech—delivered in English—of higher quality. I do most heartily congratulate him on his treatment of the theme, the marshalling and presentation on the salient points of his case and upon his general rounding off of a perfect case. He was like an impressario.
I am interested in this subject because I suppose that, in the ordinary way, 1 should be one of the first applicants for
1472
a pension. If it goes by seniority then I come first. I have been in this House now for 32 years. I have lived not with shame but with pride the life of a working man in this Britain of ours. I went to school for the first time 70 years ago last week. I was then two years and 10 months old. Some of us know the circumstances in which sometimes a boy of that age is better out of the house than in it. A brother was due to be born and my mother sent me to school with an elder brother and a sister. I went toddling away with pride to the school 1¼ miles away to start a great scholastic career. I found there a most marvellous teacher, a woman of great kindness and maternal interest.
I remember with almost perfect detail those years before I began my career. I had no intention of going to Parliament. I wanted to go to the Wild West. I had read something about it. I went to school and had my share of boyish adventures. Early in life, however, I started reading, in Welsh, something about men's hopes for human betterment, for a better society and about the part that Parliament must play in bringing those changes about. Practically all my reading was in Welsh. I was about three or four years old when I started these studies, and I have been reinforced in my conviction that, in spite of what has been achieved, there are still victories to be won. The task which lies before us is not only to provide decent social conditions in this wonderful little island in which we live, but to give an example of leadership to the world.
I worked down the pit just over 60 years ago. I have worked for 23 years underground, at home and abroad. I met my opposite numbers from Germany, France, Belgium and Poland, working in the mines in America, and I came to realise that many of them had ideas similar to ours. This is a very hurried sketch of the background of my life. I came here many years afterwards. I know of no place with more generous instincts and broader sympathies than this House of Commons.
I sometimes found strong opposition to changes, even for the better, but circumstances helped to bring about those changes. Whatever people say, we shall never abdicate our claim to having played a great part in bringing about a better standard of life in Britain. I am

1473
very proud to have assisted in a modest way during the 32 years in which I have been a Member. There were one or two years when I took up more columns in HANSARD than anyone else, but speakers were few in those days. I very often talked out of my turn. But I have never had occasion to be more pleased with the tone of the House than I have been today.
I beg my comrades on this side of the House and on the other—hon. Members opposite are my comrades in this respect, because they are all enrolled in our plan for national and world rehabilitation—to take the opportunity of establishing a responsibility to see that the servants of the House are not left neglected and deserted when they have done their work.
I am not worried. I have never worried in my life. I have always had plenty of faith that tomorrow is a better day than today, and the day after will be better still. But although I am not worried I know that many people are not given to so much optimism as the brightest optimist among us. We have to cheer each other up and convince each other that when the time comes both sides of the House must join forces in doing the right thing.
There will be plenty of opportunities to do so, and this is one. This is an occasion when we must all work together. Whether a person comes here young, as I did, or old, as others have, there is nothing wrong in seeing that in days of misfortune, when his luck turns against him, he should have reasonable guarantees of sustenance and support. We are now embarked upon the building of a guaranteed and secure condition of life in the State. It does not matter that I am speaking as one who might be claiming a pension. It will not come for a little while. If my health is maintained I shall not want a pension for a long time, but I do want to urge this pension scheme.
I am, perhaps, one of the most unselfish Members. Despite the poverty with which I have been closely acquainted all my life, I have never wanted for a penny, and I have a faith within me that tells me now, as it always has, that I shall never be in need of a penny. But everybody has not that assurance within him, and unless we follow through the proposal about which we are talking this afternoon, we shall fail to establish a
1474
sense of readiness to provide mutual guarantees in the rest of the country.
The country looks to us for an example. Here is our opportunity. We are to provide pensions for those who have reached the age when they can no longer continue and wish to retire. I shall not bother very much about the conditions, but I am anxious that the House should seize the opportunity which has been offered to it today. There should be no reluctance on the part of anyone to throw his good will and support into this proposal. There should be no difficulty in finding the resources to provide the pensions. There is nothing in the arguments which are based upon the cost of such provisions.
I appeal to the House to accept this proposal, not because I have any personal interest, but because I have been its champion for many years. I felt as strongly about this subject when I gave evidence before the Committee which inquired into it about seven or eight years ago. Let hon. Members read it up. I say nothing today that I did not say then. I am convinced that this House will do credit to itself, and add cubits to its stature and reputation in the eyes of the country and the world if it accepts this proposal.
5.23 p.m.
Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: I feel privileged to follow the Father of the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell). I shall refer to the point he made about pensions for ex-Members of Parliament later in my speech. I am sure we all agree that he is not really concerned with the dates at which he will draw a pension.
I ought to declare my interest in the matter. I work in business, outside the House, on a fairly considerable scale, and within my own limits, I believe that I also work on a fairly considerable scale within the House. One thing I do feel is that when a Member is also working outside —whatever work it is—it takes its toll on his health. I have heard it suggested by medical people that 25 years in the House of Commons may knock five or 10 years off a Member's life. That is very difficult to assess, but towards the end of July one begins to see jaded Members, whose interest is lagging. I sometimes wonder if we do not try to do too much, and

1475
whether we should not achieve more if we did less.
A Member dies after putting in 25 years of service to the House. We can be here at 2.30 p.m. the following day and hear pleasant words from Mr. Speaker, and afterwards rarely hear his name mentioned again. It is said that nobody is deader than a dead M.P. A great deal of the work done by Members is not appreciated by the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) talked about educating the public. We are rather like other professional people; we provide good material for comedians and others, and we have to take their jibes in good part. Nevertheless, the public do not really understand what our duties are today, or how they have grown in the last 10 years. We have to educate the public in that respect rather more than we have done.
I think the Report of the Select Committee is admirable, and my sympathies are with it, and I think we owe the Committee a debt of gratitude for what it has done, but we must be very careful not to give a wrong impression to the public. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), in a magnificent speech, said there were many pension and wage claims and that there always would be. I think that is the case, but, nevertheless, there is rather more restraint at the present time than for some years. If all those concerned pressed their claims we should be in some difficulty. The case for increasing Members' salaries, or paying them more for their expenses, has to be put to the public, and it has to be well timed, and I am not sure that this is the time to do it.
If it is not well timed we shall arouse indignation, not only amongst old-age pensioners, for instance, but also among many men and women who are earning their daily living. It is easy for us to legislate if we are all agreed about a thing. I think we are all generally agreed that there is a strong case for doing something to assist hon. Members financially, and I think we are all generally agreed that something should be done about that. Therefore, it would be comparatively easy for us to vote ourselves some assistance, but I think all the reasons for that should first be explained to the public. I wonder whether the time for that is now.
1476
I do not want to bring politics into this debate, but nevertheless not long ago, for various reasons, the country was in very straitened circumstances. For various reasons the position has straightened itself out. However, we are not yet out of the wood, and we ought to remember that in considering this question. If we were to carry out all the recommendations of the Select Committee, the cost would not be very great in terms of money today. Indeed, the cost would be comparatively small, but that is not the only consideration, for we have to set an example in this as in other ways, and the public look to Members of Parliament for an example in these matters.
However, I would say a special word about the Parliamentary Secretaries. They have almost the worst deal of all. A Parliamentary Secretary usually takes up his post in the early thirties or middle thirties when he should be on the upgrade in his profession or business. He is probably married and a father, and may be sending his children to a private school. I know some hon. Members who have had to stop sending their children to private schools, who have sold their small cars and taken to bicycling to work, they are so hard up. That is not right.
A Parliamentary Secretary has a heavy responsibility in the House anyhow, but if the senior Minister is in another place his responsibility is much heavier for representing the Ministry in this House. The junior Minister receives £1,500 a year, and the Permanent Secretary receives £4,000 a year, perhaps, and he also has the prospect of a considerable pension, and enjoys continuity in his job, whereas the Parliamentary Secretary not only has much less income from his post, not more than £1,500, but can hope to hold his office for only two or three years, and has no future he can confidently look forward to at all.
I am only thinking aloud, but I should say that a Parliamentary Secretary is worth at least £3,000 per annum and that senior Ministers are worth more than they are getting today. It comes to this. We are getting government on the cheap. We cannot have monarchy on the cheap, and we cannot really have government on the cheap. Other countries are paying more for the government they get

1477
than this country pays for its government. We have to explain all that to the public.
There is no doubt that Private Members have for many years suffered hardships. One can observe the sort of hardships they endure by going into the Tea Room, for instance, or the Dining Room, and observing what they have for their meals. There is no doubt there is real hardship. One may see a Member unpacking sandwiches for his evening meal, and that on a night when he will have to be here until the early hours of the morning. It is just not good enough.
The justification for this case, the arguments for it, could have been made much earlier. The Parliament that was elected in 1935 lasted 10 years, during which a vast increase took place in the cost of living. I had not the honour of being a Member of the House then. There was the advantage, from the point of view of making this case, of a Coalition Government for much of the time. I should have thought that the parties, prior to the 1945 General Election, could have put this case to the public. We cannot go to the public at the next General Election to out bid or under bid each other in our election addresses to get votes. That is out of the question. The way to put the case to the public is this. The parties should state it in their manifestos, and they should say in their manifestos what payments should be made to Members.
I do not believe we can give all that the Select Committee recommends, but I do believe that we can do something to alleviate the hardships that hon. Members have to endure. It would not be for me to name a figure, but, perhaps, such a sum of £250 or £300 a year might be paid to Members to cover their out-of-pocket expenses or in the form of amenities, to tide them over until we have a general revision of our salaries and expenses. In the meantime, let us educate the public in what the Select Committee recommends.
We have the worst facilities of any parliament in the world. Until the rebuilding of the Chamber after the war one had to interview constituents and others on small, narrow benches that I found very uncomfortable, and they were in the Lobbies. One could not possibly run a commercial business like that. If one did
1478
one would very soon find oneself "in the red." That is what would happen if one tried to run a commercial business in the conditions of work of Private Members here. I hope that very shortly we may put up a suitable building for Members where they can do their work during the long hours by day and by night that we are here.
There is no parliament in the world that carries out its duties better than this House carries out its duties, and there is not one in the world that has the traditions that this House has, and I would even say that there is not one that has the spirit of this House. For instance, we quarrel and row with each other across the Floor of the House, saying all sorts of hard things about each other, but outside the Chamber relations are pretty good and tempers aroused inside the Chamber very soon die down—at any rate that is what I find.
There are times, however, when the House has a problem to face, when we are all agreed in general about what should be done to solve it. This is one of those occasions when we ought to be so agreed, and when we ought to be especially careful to do what is right. It is not merely a matter of money. Compared with what we as a nation are spending today, the cost of the proposals is very small.
It must be remembered, however, that we are living in a day of specialists —unfortunately, Specialists are Members of the House and make valuable contributions to our debates on their subjects. We have specialists from the professions and various industries. We have them here because in one sense membership of the House is not a full-time job, and it would be most unfortunate if it became a full-time job, whether we paid £1,500 or £2,000 or £3,000 a year for it. In the long run, the House itself would suffer. We want men from all walks of life—and, it may be, those who have a little money of their own prefer to sit in the Standing Committees in the mornings, although I do not expect many of them do. My point is that we do not want a moulded type of Member. The country would lose by it.
I hope the House will weigh up very carefully the Select Committee's Report, and that we shall do something about it. I should not like to say what. I have

1479
already mentioned a figure. First of all I think the public should understand what is required, and that it would be best if the parties as such stated the case to the public by the means at their disposal, through their literature, and on the radio and television, and in their manifestos, and I hope that the conditions of Members will be improved for the Members of the future.
5.39 p.m.
Mr. C. R. Attlee: I am speaking tonight, not from a party point of view or as the leader of a party, but as a fairly old Member of the House, the runner up to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) as Father of the House. We have had some most remarkable speeches today from both sides of the House, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). We are dealing with a subject of vital importance today, especially when we consider it in relation to the position of democracy in the world. We in this House have a very heavy responsibility.
We have received from this Committee—it has done its work admirably—what amounts to a finding of fact by a very competent and very representative jury who had all the evidence laid before them. In paragraph 52 it is stated:
"The evidence leaves Your Committee no option but to report that the expenses necessarily entailed by Membership of Parliament are such that the present payment of £1,000 a year is not sufficient to enable Members to meet these expenses and to keep themselves and their families In reasonable circumstances while attending to their extensive Parliamentary duties."
That is a finding of fact. We must accept that. It is open to us to consider any alternative proposals, but I think that we have to accept that as a fact.
The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) was right to say that we have been slow in these matters. It was a very long time before the first £400 a year was instituted, and it was a very long time before that was brought up in accordance with the cost of living. I came here in 1922 on the £400 a year which had been settled in 1911, and we lived under that until 1937.
Mr. Thomas Williams: It was until 1931.
Mr. Attlee: It dropped to £360. There it was. It was a long time before we got beyond that. Those were pretty hard days. I know how many of our fellow Members suffered as a result of it. I myself found it difficult. I had some private means, as they say, which I watched growing less year by year, but for many years I never went into the Dining Room and had to be content with a House of Commons sausage. It is good that we should all be able to mix in the public rooms of this House. I do not like divisions in which we find one lot hiving off this way and another lot hiving off somewhere else. We have a collective sense in this House.
We made certain changes. I recall very well the changes brought in by Mr. Chamberlain and the changes introduced by my right hon. Friend. It is very interesting to read the speeches on those occasions. I think that the pick of the speeches on the last occasion was that by the present Lord Hailsham, when he was Mr. Quintin Hogg. His speech is worth quoting. He said:
"There is always a danger in democracy that the two parties abuse each other so much that the general public believes that which is evil which is spoken by both of them, and comes in the end to disregard and despise its democratic institutions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 1258.]
It is important that we should have, if not a good conceit of our individual selves, at least a good conceit of us collectively in this House. We know that our work is important. It is undoubtedly true that the work has increased very much even since I have been in the House. I am one of those who might be called full-time Members of Parliament. I believe that we want a mixture of Members with plenty of outside experience, but we do have a number of Members who give up their whole time to this work. Many of them get no limelight at all. I do not think that the general public realise that Members who are working here full time, for the money they get, often work 16 hours a day. For the last 25 years I have worked on an average 16 hours a day, and sometimes 17 hours, in this House, and it is fairly heavy work.
Another point is that, after all, it is a fairly precarious life. Unless one happens to have a very safe seat one never knows

1481
when it may not end. It is extraordinarily difficult outside certain limited professions and occupations to get any other work. For most kinds of work one has to be there at a certain time regularly. One cannot be regular in this House. One never knows what is going to happen. One may be put on a Committee and so forth. Therefore, the means of external sustentation of the Parliamentary expense allowance is very precarious. All these things ought to be taken into account by the general public.
I should like to say, incidentally, how much I sympathise with what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield about junior Ministers. 1 can remember the time when a junior Minister was not supposed to do anything. He appeared now and again in the House, and perhaps answered a Question, but he was forbidden to answer any supplementary questions. Nowadays the work is so much heavier that he really has to do a great deal of work. If his Minister is any good, he gives the junior Minister a lot of work to do, for that is the only way to train him.
I agree with what has been said, but it is a difficult matter. We had difficulty in the last Parliament in regard to the Whips. We all admire and love our Whips. However, the Whips have to make a sacrifice. Of course, they get a room in which to sit, which is very unusual for a Member of Parliament, but otherwise what do they get? They get more kicks than ha'pence. It may be said that they get honour and glory. The trouble is that honour and glory do not fill a stomach.
All these years we have really been in a period of transition. At one time it was almost axiomatic that a Member had plenty of money, and, therefore, "What did it matter?" As has been said, we got our government on the cheap, just as we used to get our Fighting Services on the cheap. In the Services one was not supposed to have to live on one's pay. Those days have departed. It has been the virtue of this House and of our institutions that we constantly adapt ourselves to new circumstances.
It is interesting to read the very remarkable letter written by Lord Randolph Churchill in 1892 in which he prophesied the rise of the Labour movement and how, if things were done right,
1482
the Labour movement would fit in with our constitution, or otherwise we might have a revolution. It is interesting that even at that time he had voted for payment of Members. Payment of Members has now been accepted, and we are today on not that but the amount.
Looking at the Report, we see that great care has been taken about the amount. Personally, I do not think that £1,500 is too much. When we consider the deductions which have to be made and the expenses which have to be met, I do not think that that is a sum which will attract a person to come into the House merely for financial reasons. That is a delusion. Anyway, if someone does, he will go out again pretty quickly. He will certainly find himself very disappointed with the amount when he discovers what he has to spend.
I entirely agree with what has been said about voluntary service and am in favour of it. However, looking round the House, we see hon. Members who do great service here. They have abilities which might command very high salaries outside. A very great deal of public service and self-sacrifice is entailed on the part of hon. Members. Even if they are paid £1,500 per year, able men and women will be making a sacrifice in the public service.
I should like to say a word or two about pensions, because there is some controversy on that subject. It was suggested that if people had pensions looming in the distance they would be more amenable to the Whips. I do not believe that there is much in that.
It has been said that if Members of Parliament were entitled to pensions they would be less amenable to the Whips. I am one of the few people in this House who is privileged to be entitled to a pension, and I recall very well the third day after I became Prime Minister walking down the stairs of Number 10. As I looked at the picture of Lord Bath, I thought, "I have beaten you anyway; you were only Prime Minister for two' days." I believe that when he retired he did get various pensions, and I thought, "I have got a pension too."
Believe me, as a person who has lived on a precarious salary and on a Parliamentary salary for a number of years, it made me feel much more independent.

1483
and I am convinced that we shall not get numbers of people humbly following the Whips because of the prospect of a pension. It may be that if they are entitled to pensions, the Whips will find them much more obstreperous.
There is, I think, the security which a pension gives. One of the saddest things I have experienced in my time in this House—and I have seen the personnel of this House change pretty often—was having good colleagues of mine, who, I knew, were dying, and who could not leave this House. That is really a terrible thing. Members who should have been resting could do nothing but just sit about and come into vote and nothing else—and that after years of public service.
I think that we should do more for them than we do at the present time. I think that it is due to them. I do not believe that, properly put, we shall find resentment among the body of electors. I have very seldom heard anything about this. I have been in this House white increases have been made, and it has always been open to quite a lot of my constituents to say, "Why should you give Members of Parliament more than we are getting?"
We do not live at the present time in a regime in which we have complete equality all round. If we were to accept the principle that because we cannot do everything we should like at the moment, or do everything which we should like for the old-age pensioners, therefore we must not do anything for a Member of Parliament, that would affect every kind of occupation. When the payment of Members was brought in at £400 a year, the old-age pensioner was getting 5s. a week at the age of 70. That did not seem to deter our predecessors. One could make a pathetic case of that. We have every sympathy with the old-age pensioners, but we really cannot run the whole of society on that basis.
I think that in this case we have to face facts and realise that this place does most important work. Of course, it is easy to laugh at Parliament and Members of Parliament. I have an intense pride in Parliament and in being a Member. I should never be ashamed in the least of meeting any of my constituents and telling
1484
them that I propose to support these proposals, because I think they are right. I have never found my constituents and my friends, however poor, fail to realise that we have to give the man or the woman the rate for the job.
Frankly speaking, what we do for our people in this House of Commons, whether it is by way of amenities, or expenses or pensions, does not really come up to the rate for the job as exemplified in Parliaments of less antiquity and less authority than our own.
5.55 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am sure that we all accept the fact that the contributions so far made to this debate have been very impressive, including that made in such a human manner by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
I come to this Box not to take part in a political debate any more than any of my predecessors in the debate. I have always thought that in my high office the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to be at the service of the House, and it is in that spirit that I propose to make a contribution today. I accept absolutely the view that the dignity of Parliament must be maintained, and I also accept the statements which have been made, which fortunately cannot be verified by exact details, because that would be wrong, of the situation of ordinary Members and of old Members to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
Indeed, the House may be entertained to hear that I have had more letters asking me not to speak on this occasion from both sides of the House than I have ever had before. I was personally somewhat tempted, because I do not think that it is a very easy debate to take part in, to obey this injunction, but on reflection I thought that the picture, as I shall describe it, would not be complete if I did not take the somewhat unenviable task in this debate of putting some facts before the House.
I undertake to the House that I shall in no way close any door, but if I put facts and schemes and alternatives before the House, hon. Members must do me the justice to realise that I am doing that so as to be at the service of the House, and I am not committing myself today to any of the schemes put forward, nor am I

1485
committing the Government. If I approach this in that way, I may be able to be of some service. I should like to pay tribute to the opening speech of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). The Leader of the Opposition referred to junior Ministers, and I think that he will realise that in my time junior Ministers do most of my work for me, which is very different from the old days when the right hon. Gentleman started his career. With regard to his reference to the Whips, we are delighted to hear that he loves and supports his own Whips, but he has very strange ways of showing his passion.
The other speeches which we have heard, both from this side and from the other side of the House, deserve also a word of appreciation from anybody taking part in this debate. They have hitherto run on very similar lines and had a similar vein going through them. It may well be that in the later part of the debate, particularly if I do not speak too long, there will be an opportunity for other Members to put perhaps a different slant on our affairs. I very much doubt, being closely in touch with hon. Members throughout the House on this matter, if any different spirit will be shown. If any different slant is shown, I think that the House can take it that the spirit is the same. I remind the House that the Government have already stated, in the words of the Prime Minister, that:
"in the view of Her Majesty's Government, it would not be right, in present circumstances, to proceed in the particular manner recommended by the Select Committee."
The Prime Minister continued:
"There is no doubt that a number of hon. Members are pressed by serious difficulties because heavy and necessary expenses absorb so much of the Parliamentary salary."
That we all accept, all feel and all know. The Prime Minister went on to say:
"The House may wish to consider alternative methods of dealing with this problem."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1954; Vol. 526, c. 1150–51.]
My claim of justification for my intervention this afternoon is that hitherto some of these alternative methods have not been put before the House. Although some of them were considered by the Select Committee, there is no reason why someone should not have a shot at an alternative method. At any rate, they
1486
would make a useful contribution to the debate, whatever happens to them, and whatever views hon. Members may take about them.
In this, therefore, I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who also made so eloquent a contribution to the debate, that it would be wrong to go into details. While I shall not go into much detail, I have already found that if one does not explain how a plan might work, people simply do not understand it and reject it without proper comprehension. If people reject a plan after understanding it, that is quite another matter. This is essentially a matter for the House of Commons as a whole.
I shall not, therefore, go back over the statement already made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the salary, except to say this, which I ought to say if the House and the country are to get a proper assessment of this matter. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) no doubt stated what a great many of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side feel: namely, that the House ought to give an example to the country, that Members of Parliament should not therefore vote themselves an increase in salary, and that there are various interests in the country who would resent such action.
There is no doubt that the question of giving an example to the country and not raising our own salaries at present is held by a large number of Members on this side of the House. Therefore, when we come to our final decision as a House on this matter, it would be wrong that that attitude, which is an honourable one and which I have tested out in frequent conversations with those who hold it, should not be weighed in the balance together with the other arguments which have been put earlier in this debate. Therefore, we are indebted also to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield for putting a point of view which is strongly felt in the House.
My hon. and gallant Friend also referred to the question of putting this matter at the General Election. Again, in answer to the many letters I have received from both sides of the House, I want to give no final view on this, but I will give my own reaction. I have

1487
never liked the idea of this being a matter at the Genera) Election. My hon. and gallant Friend put perfectly sincerely the possibility of an agreement being reached and everybody having it in their election addresses. That may or may not be a possibility.
A humorist, in a letter to me on this subject, said:
"For goodness sake do not put this off to the next Election, otherwise the House of Commons will insist on an early Election and Her Majesty's Government's beneficent reign may be brought to an end."
That particular argument is not weighing with me, since I am well aware of the permanence of Her Majesty's Government.
I shall not, therefore, refer any further to the question of salary, except to remind hon. Members, as was brought out by the hon. Member for Bermond-sey, that when Mr. David Lloyd George originally said remains eternally true. I had the same quotation in my notes, but as the hon. Member gave it I need not detain the House. It was in 1911 that the right hon. Gentleman said that the payment to Members was essentially an allowance. That is really what it is. If we look at the Select Committee's Report, that is brought out most graphically.
It is not really a salary of £1,000 at all. With the occupational expenses removed, it comes to about £250, which is roughly £5 a week. If the ordinary public do not believe this, I ask them to envisage any other career or profession in which the employer does not pay a great many of the expenses for his employees. We have to pay them ourselves. The worst of our job is that not only do we pay our own occupational expenses, but our employer reserves the right to sack us at frequent or infrequent intervals.
And so we really have a very hard job. We have no outlook of continuity, and we never know what we shall have left from those expenses which we must pay. It is wrong for the public not to understand that to run round a large rural constituency or to canvass in an urban constituency, to provide the locomotion for doing so—even if we borrow it from our friends, they probably want something back at some time—or to pay for the telephone and postage, which the
1488
hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) referred to, or to pay for the extra lodging, to which I shall be referring later in one of my alternative suggestions, is a very heavy imposition on the ordinary Member of Parliament and his wife and family.
It was a particularly good thing that reference has been made to the strain which an M.P.'s life imposes on his family, and particularly on his wife. Political wives have a rougher deal than any others. The way they stand up to it is really remarkable. They may want to see more of us—I hope so. At any rate, they very often get left out, and at the functions when we take them with us they are not always so interested as we think they are.
Many hon. Members feel that if we cannot proceed with the recommendations of the Select Committee's Report, some other alleviation is necessary. Before I deal with that, I will deal with the question of the Pension Fund. The Government have had severe difficulty in accepting the recommendations of the Select Committee about the Pension Fund. To begin with, we have not got continuous employment here, for reasons sometimes beyond our control. Secondly, a non-contributory scheme, even if we read the rather vague paragraph 62 of the Select Committee's Report, to which reference has been made, would not, I think, be very well accepted by public opinion, whatever the view of public opinion might be about the case for the salary.
There are many people in the community, for example, living on fixed pensions or savings, and many salaried and self-employed people, quite apart from the great bulk of organised labour, who might not fully understand this move. I suggest to the Members of the Select Committee and to the House as a whole that this matter wants a great deal more attention before the House can accept it. It is a question which is very controversial in the country and is not yet properly worked out.
I have been examining the state of the Members' Fund. The present state of the Fund is some £78,000 in capital, of which about £74,700 is represented in investments. The income comes as from subscriptions to about £7,400, and altogether to £9,800. This is administered with great devotion by certain of our

1489
colleagues in the House, and the hon. Member for Nuneaton has already referred to the harrowing cases with which he and his friends have to deal.
If we have to deal with this matter, I would much rather be brought into a discussion about the present state of the Fund and its future than adhere immediately—or, indeed, as far as I am concerned, at present, at any time—to the proposal made by the Select Committee. But that does not mean that we are not extremely concerned about the position of old and retiring Members.
I have been here only 25 years, which is as nothing compared with the right hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others. It is quite long enough to remember many distinguished personalities, not only on the other side—I would rather not mention names—but on this side of the House, who in their declining years have had literally to be rescued in a manner which was not dignified but which they accepted through sheer need. Therefore, I am not neglecting the position of the old. I am only saying that I do not think we have yet found a solution. If my services can be of any use, I will come into this question and discuss it further.
Now we come to the position of alternative possibilities. The position as I see it is that, after the speeches which have been made, I have no necessity to justify the need for some sort of help. That has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister; the Leader of the Opposition referred to paragraph 52 of the Committee's Report, and I think the House can take it for granted, without my detaining hon. Members, that there is a need.
And so we have considered a large number of possible alternatives. I do not want to be dogmatic about any of them, but I will put some of them before the House. A good many of them are known. To be absolutely clear and frank, I must start by saying that any expenses scheme must be a really genuine expenses scheme, otherwise one falls back on the alternative of the salary scheme. So it is no good my putting forward any expenses scheme unless it is related to expenses and would genuinely work. If I did not say that, there might be misunderstanding as to how it would work.
1490
The first possibility is to provide a sum—for the sake of argument, let it be somewhere between £100 and £500 a year—against which each Member would draw, free of tax, reimbursement of necessary expenses on showing that he had actually incurred the sum claimed. That is a straightforward and simple method of providing expenses. If the expenses were less than the maximum, according to our Inland Revenue rules a Member would receive the amount actually spent. If the expenses were more, he would meet the balance from his £1,000 salary, and he could, of course, claim tax relief accordingly as at present.
The effect of that possibility might not be very different from an increase in salary, particularly if the maximum were fixed at a figure which most Members would be able to claim. But it would be founded on a different principle and the House might think that such a scheme would be defensible. In particular everyone will readily realise that many classes of expenses which an hon. Member incurs, for instance, on secretarial help, postage and so on, relate to services which an ordinary employer provides as a matter of course without cost to the employee.
There are various refinements which one could add to this idea, that is, to possibility No. 1. One could say that only certain defined classes of expense would be claimed against this sum, such as secretarial and postage expenses. The advantage of this particular refinement would be that everyone knows that these are the sort of expenses which an M.P. must necessarily incur and which are directly related to the actual carrying out of his duties, as distinct from the expenses he might incur to put himself in a position to carry them out. The amount would be within pretty definable limits, necessarily determined by the job itself and not due to personal choice or the idiosyncrasies of the individual Member. That is a refinement on the first idea.
Another idea would be to provide various services to hon. Members in kind, without charge. One idea which has been canvassed and which I think the Committee looked at is to provide a pool of secretaries for the use of hon. Members. In this hot weather this sounds a cool and attractive idea, but I can assure hon. Members that there would be

1491
formidable difficulties. First, it would necessarily be extravagant, for it would be impossible to provide a service adequate to meet peak demand without a great deal of wasted time when the demand was slack or during the Recesses. The administration of such a scheme would, I think, have to be in the hands of the House, not of the Government, and, therefore, there would have to be negotiations with the authorities here. It would be a troublesome job.
There would also be the difficulties to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield has referred about accommodation. He was quite right to raise the question of the difficulty that we have over accommodation. I certainly have noticed it after the exceptional opportunities I have had of visiting Legislatures in a great many other countries where the physical circumstances are far preferable to what we have here. In America they have secretaries provided and they have more than one room, not like the Whips here all in one room. They also have all sorts of facilities for interviewing people which we have not got.
Another idea is to provide free postage, telephones or telegrams over and above what is now provided. These schemes have been examined on previous occasions and the decision has gone against them. There would be some awkward problems of control in such a scheme. For instance, it would not be reasonable for the taxpayer to pay for a Member to send perhaps scores or hundreds of telegrams to his constituents giving hot news of his achievements in the House. Trunk calls represent another service to which Members might feel tempted to resort a little to freely if they were free.
But the real point about these particular items is that they do not at present represent anything like the heaviest of the necessary expenses which hon. Members incur. If they were provided free they would not alone provide enough relief and certainly not enough to be regarded as a remedy for the present situation.
So I come to the proposal which has been noised abroad, but I do not think has been fully put—the possibility of a subsistence allowance, to which the hon. Member for Bermondsey referred. If we
1492
look at this we must be careful to ensure that it does not mean reimbursement of ordinary living expenses; no one has a right to that; it means an allowance which reimburses a person for extra subsistence to which he is necessarily put in carrying out his duties. There is no doubt that hon. Members do incur such expenses.
A special and distinguishing feature of the M.P.'s job is that it has to be done in two places, Westminster and his constituency. One of these must normally be away from home, so to that extent it means extra subsistence and expense. There is certainly a logical case for a scheme of subsistence allowances, and the advantage of looking at such a scheme is that it would conform to the ordinary common practice in outside employment, namely, in business, in trade union circles, in the Civil Service, where we operate it, and so forth.
On the other hand, when we come to examine the details of such a scheme, it must be to some extent restrictive. I would express the details of such a scheme as follows for the benefit of hon. Members, as this debate was suggested for the purpose of the views of hon. Members being considered. If the Member has a home outside London—and I am coming to the problem of London, which must be met in this scheme if we are sticking to the rigours and the standards I set earlier in my speech—he would be eligible for a night's subsistence allowance for every night spent in London by reason of his Parliamentary duties. If the hon. Member maintains only one home and that home is in London, he would not be eligible for the allowance in respect of nights spent in London, but possibly he would be eligible for the allowance in respect of nights spent in his constituency in pursuance of his Parliamentary duties. We would thus stick to the principle of "home" and "away from home."
Mr. S. N. Evans rose—
Mr. Butler: I think I had better finish this part of my speech and then the hon. Member can ask me a question.
Logically, this scheme should not apply to Members for London constitutencies. I purposely said earlier that we should consider expense or subsistence allowances and if I am to put the facts before the House they must be based on some principle. The Member for a constituency

1493
outside London has to attend both in London and in his constituency. This means that he keeps two homes going or he has to stay in an hotel, a club or somewhere else for the night. Whichever he does, he is clearly incurring extra necessary subsistence expenses either in London or in his constituency.
To preserve the symmetry in the case of a Member for a London constituency, the job does not require him to attend in two places but in one only. It does not require him to be away from his base on duty, and, therefore, does not involve him in much extra subsistence allowance, although it may involve him in a bit. A scheme based on the subsistence principle, if it is genuinely worked out, and if there be a feeling in the House that it is worth while to pursue it, ought to give less to the London M.P. than to others.
Mr. Mellish: As a London Member I should like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should remember that, because the London Member's constituency is nearer to this House than are the constituencies of other hon. Members, he is likely to have more constituents coming to him at the House, which in itself involves extra expense.
Mr. Butler: Looking at the permutations and combinations of every scheme known to me, I reject the idea that the London M.P. has no extra expenses, but if such a scheme as I have suggested is introduced, based on the ordinary practice of trade unions and of business, we will have to make a differentiation between the allowance for a London Member and that for a Member from outside London. I do not want to go into the detail of defining the London area either in the terms used by the Inland Revenue or in some other terms.
But hon. Members might want a picture of the sort of amount involved. The only guide that I can give on this subject without going into the matter in great detail and producing an actual scheme, which I am not doing, is the sort of level allowed for civil servants and Ministers when they are away for the night. This is of the order of £2 a night. This could be drawn from the Fees Office by hon. Members in respect of such nights as they necessarily spend away from their homes by reason of their Parliamentary duties. It is impossible to give an actual assessment of what this would come to, but in
1494
order to save hon. Members mathematical calculations, and to relieve them of any anxiety in working this out, if it is a case of Parliament meeting 30 weeks in the year, it would come to between £200 and £300 a year.
I have heard of objections made to the possibility of clocking in, one of which has been referred to in this debate. I would not suggest any such rigorous method, and I would base the allowance on ordinary business and trade union practice, with hon. Members drawing it from the Fees Office, if there were general feeling amongst hon. Members that such a scheme was possible.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that an advantage of a scheme of this kind—some of the disadvantages must be obvious to those listening to me—is that it would be entirely optional. If there are hon. Members amongst us, of whom I know many, who have a conscience in this matter and do not want to draw a salary or any more expenses; or if there are hon. Members who do not need by their circumstances to draw any more money, they need not do so, and it would be possible for hon. Members who are eligible to draw this if they so desire. Each individual Member of Parliament could decide on his own, if such a scheme were introduced, whether he wanted the allowance or not. As far as I am aware, this is the first time that the scheme has been put forward with its possible scope and implications. As this debate is designed to obtain reactions, we must now see how this would be received by hon. Members.
I must detain the House for two minutes to deal with the expenses question, because it is deceiving hon. Members to talk about a rise in salary, or about a subsistence allowance, if they are not told clearly how much the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take back from them at the end, and how much they will get eventually. Looking at expenses, we have to fit this scheme into the present method by which hon. Members claim expenses. At present expenses necessarily incurred by hon. Members are claimed and allowed for tax relief against their Parliamentary salary. All the various proposals I have outlined for relief of expenses, of which I have given several possibilities including the last one on subsistence, or of contributing towards

1495
expenses incurred, have this in common: They provide a benefit which does not attract tax. On the other hand, they would have to be taken as reducing the amount which can at present be claimed for tax relief as expenses incurred out of the Parliamentary salary.
I want hon. Members to know this in the Chamber—not to talk about it outside and say that they did not get an answer—so that they have the scheme before them in its entirety. This is important when we want to consider the actual net benefit to hon. Members, and how it would vary according to the private means of the hon. Member concerned.
Shortening it, it would come to this, that for every additional £100 under any new proposal which an hon. Member might receive by way of contribution towards expenses, £100 of the Members' salary, which previously had been devoted to expenses, would then fall to be treated as salary. This is, alas, a salary subject to tax and the net benefit in the ordinary case would therefore for each unit of £100 be £100 after deduction of tax. The result would be that a poorer man, a family man in particular, who would not pay much tax on this, would get a much greater benefit from this suggestion than a richer man who would really get not very much out of it. That point has already been put by one hon. Member, but I wanted to make it absolutely clear in working out the result of the scheme.
So it is worth while hon. Members looking at these alternatives and reflecting that the last one could, in the case of an hon. Member honestly in need, and in the case particularly of an hon. Member with a family, result in a considerable extra allowance, amounting in fact to almost as much as that which has been proposed in other directions.
I conclude by saying that these are the sort of alternative methods and ideas—by no means comprehensive and conclusive because I do not want to detain the House too long this evening—which the Government have been considering. Some have attractions and some have drawbacks and disadvantages. We shall have to take the final decision on this matter in the light of views expressed by hon. Members themselves and also of
1496
public opinion, which is sensitive to this issue and which no hon. Member would be wise to neglect. I do not say that an hon. Member would be wise to give way to public opinion, because I suppose we never do that as politicians; we stand up for our views and are as strenuous and rigorous in our attention to them as possible. But we have to take into account the good name of the Mother of Parliaments and of the House of Commons as a result of the joint action we may decide to take.
In this short speech I have not said anything about Under-Secretaries or about Ministers, because I think they will have to be brought in on another occasion. I will only say that it is crystal clear that the case of the Under-Secretaries needs very early attention. They are neither being paid enough nor are they getting adequate attention for their expenses. In the case of many Ministers of State, they are actually getting more by the combination of half their salary as a Member of Parliament than the Cabinet Ministers, who are so vastly superior to them in every way.
Mr. Frederick Lee: Could the right hon. Gentleman make those sentiments retrospective?
Mr. Butler: I certainly could not make them retrospective to a previous Administration, and I doubt if they could be made retrospective to the present one. I say nothing about Cabinet Ministers. The problems of the Under-Secretaries and the Ministers of State are those to which the House will have to give attention and which are having my constant attention.
I have purposely responded to my correspondents who wrote to me before I rose that I was not to come to a final conclusion, that I was to put myself at the service of the House, and that I was to put forward alternative methods for their consideration. That I have done. The Government will most carefully weigh the sober and impressive and human contributions made by our colleagues in this House, and we sincerely hope that the problem may be solved in the interests of the good name of Parliament, in the present circumstances, and in the name of the democracy which we all serve.
6.28 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Peart: I am glad that the Chancellor did not say that he was committed to any particular scheme and that he will keep an open mind on this issue. However, I hope that after he hears the arguments lie will reject a scheme which will give subsistence allowance to hon. Members who may be residing in their constituencies or in London. I am in a fortunate position in having a constituency which is also a beauty spot, so if I proposed having a holiday in my constituency, I can see how, if such a scheme were adopted, it would be open to abuse. I hope that the Chancellor will consider carefully the arguments put today.
I agree with so much of what has been said by previous speakers that I trust that my speech will follow the precedent that has been set. This is a House of Commons matter and we must consider what is good in the light of the House of Commons, what is in the best interests of our colleagues and what, in the end, affects the good of the nation.
I want to compliment the Select Committee, because I believe it has sifted the evidence and has presented the facts. If I may introduce one slight personal note, I have had three professions. I drifted into the scholastic profession, I was a soldier by force of necessity, and I chose a political life voluntarily.
In a sense I am a full-time politician. I make no apologies for that. I am proud to be a Member of this House. I am proud to be a full-time politician. I am unable to follow my earlier profession because I could not now teach full time in a school in any part of the country. Therefore, in a sense because of necessity, I am a full-time politician. Because of my experience here I hope I shall always have the privilege of being a full-time politician and not have to seek work outside to bring me extra financial assistance to enable me to do my job in the House.
This is a matter which goes beyond our own personal experience. It is something which affects the efficiency of the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) has written a book, entitled "Government and Parliament."
1498
He has been called "a modern Bagehot with a quiff" and he says that there is a great danger—

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

1. Telegraph Act, 1954.

2. Niall Macpherson Indemnity Act, 1954.

3. Swinton and Worsley Burial Board Act, 1954.

MEMBERS' EXPENSES
Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
6.42 p.m.
Mr. Peart: I was quoting the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South in his recent book, "Government and Parliament." He suggested there was a danger that we would become a monastic institution. I agree that that is a danger which we, as hon. Members of this House, must consider. By being full-time Members here we tend, perhaps, to live apart from the rest of the nation and, because of that, our experience becomes somewhat limited. But that argument can also apply the other way. There is always the danger that an hon. Member, by fulfilling his obligations, by fulfilling his responsibilities, will be denied opportunities to go abroad and to contribute to any of those valuable Parliamentary organisations which indirectly enrich our Parliamentary life.
An hon. Member should not have to rely on sponsored trips abroad. He should be able to use his leisure, if necessary, to enable him to understand world affairs so that he can make his contribution here in this Chamber. That argument can also apply the other way. I would agree with many hon. Members on both sides of the House that there is certainly the main question, should we have full-time politicians? That is a very real problem. I, personally, believe it to

1499
be rather academic because, whether we like it or not, many hon. Members on both sides of the House do a full-time job here.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: They have to.
Mr. Peart: As my hon. Friend says, they have to. If we look at the work of an hon. Member, we can see how the tempo has changed. The pressure of Parliamentary life is due to many factors—the polarisation of party politics, the Whip system, and the narrow balance of our political life in the country. Does this mean good government? Will such a system create a rigidity in our Parliamentary procedure? We see how the tempo has changed if we look at copies of HANSARD and compare the speeches made in this Chamber 50 years ago with those made today. In that early period there was the slow, measured, polished oratory compared with short speeches—made with staccato precision—today.
The changed tempo can be seen in the actual working of Parliament. It can be seen in the growth of legislation and the development of individual case work. Irrespective of political argument, the State interferes more than ever with the rights of citizens and, because of that, individual citizens call upon Members of Parliament to present their claims, if I may put it in those terms. We become the guardians of the citizens' rights and thus offer a check to bureaucracy.
Possibly case work can be overdone. There is a grave danger that Members of Parliament may become glorified citizens' advice bureaux. There is a danger that, instead of keeping abreast of political problems and legislation, hon. Members may become so involved in case work that an important side of their work is neglected. I still agree that case work is important especially if it helps Parliament directly to check bureaucracy. Whatever our political views or ideologies, we know that bureaucracy can exist in any system. Inevitably we must face the fact that the tempo of Parliament has changed and that the pressure on the individual Member has increased also.
This assembly does undoubtedly mirror the modern mechanical, machine age, the scientific age. In that respect
1500
many hon. Members, in order to keep the Parliamentary machine working efficiently, must of necessity do a full-time job. That is the dilemma; how much time shall we devote to it? It is a difficult choice which hon. Members have to make. As I mentioned earlier, in a personal note, I had a profession which I could not follow by being a Member of this House. That always will be the dilemma which faces many of us; shall we do less here and seek to earn a living outside by doing work which may interfere with our efficiency in the Chamber? I am not saying that in every case it does interfere. I believe the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) rightly said that many hon. Members through their experience in business or professions outside enrich our Parliamentary life. But in some cases occupation outside could restrict the Parliamentary and political life of an hon. Member and the nation would have lost a very valuable servant.
I hope that we shall adopt the proposals of the Select Committee and allow hon. Members to make the choice. As has been stated today, even if the Report of the Select Committee is adopted, hon. Members will not be making money if they are doing a full-time job in this House. It will still be extremely difficult for hon. Members to fulfil all their duties and keep their normal family life going in the proper way. There will still be difficulties. Hon. Members are not pleading for some money which will give them riches, as some people think they are. That is not so. But it is important that hon. Members should be able to make a choice.
Lord Hailsham, who was quoted by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, gave some facts and figures which, I see, have been reproduced by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) in an excellent little book on Parliament. They show that every other Member of this House at that period when we had that debate was either a company director, a trade union official or a lawyer. I agree with Lord Hailsham that it is bad that we should have so much representation from one section of the community. No Member should be prevented from making that essential decision through force of necessity. If

1501
he wishes to follow the honourable profession of a full-time politician by serving his constituents and the nation, he should be enabled to do so.
It has been said that Parliament is like a zoo—there is one of everything in it. The position is not quite like that, but I believe that the House of Commons should at least mirror the nation. We are a democracy, we can no longer go back to the system of Old Sarum and the pocket boroughs. We should see to it that our representatives do not suffer from nagging and gnawing poverty and insecurity which affects their efficiency as representatives of the nation.
This debate is important. It affects every one of us directly or indirectly. More than that, it affects the efficiency of the House of Commons and it really affects the future of democracy. I have been looking back at that classical writer on our Constitution, Walter Bagehot. whose opening words in his chapter on the House of Commons were:
"The dignified aspect of the House of Commons is altogether secondary to its efficient use."
I hope that we shall bear that matter in mind because his words, although written in 1867, still apply today and have a bearing on this debate.
We are concerned really with the efficiency of Parliament. Bagehot mentioned five main functions of the House of Commons. They were as follows: first, the elective function. We are here to carry on the Queen's Government, to maintain a relationship between the Commons and the Executive. There is, too, the expressive function; we express the opinion of the British people on all matters which come before it. Thirdly, there is the teaching function. We are a council of men who come together, and we alter society for good or evil, for better or worse. The fourth main function is informing. As we know, it derives from that mediaeval conception of Parliament, whereby the Sovereign was informed of the grievances of Parliament; we inform the nation of the grievances. The last function is legislation. Today legislation is more important than ever and Bagehot's remarks applying with greater emphasis.
Despite all our great traditions, despite the great political machine which we have built up here in the House of Commons,
1502
despite all our rules of order and Parliamentary conventions, it is in the end the personnel which is important. We must, as Lord Hailsham said, and as many other writers have stated, mirror our society. Therefore, no section of the community should be placed in any difficulty in this respect.
I come to my last point. I have stressed the fact that we are living in a Parliamentary democracy. I believe that in our democracy public opinion is mature enough to appreciate this position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we must be sensitive about public opinion, but I believe that we also have to lead. If we feel that the Select Committee has presented the facts and has arrived at right conclusions, and if we agree with those conclusions, we have a right to say so, just as, if we disagree, as no doubt some hon. Members will, we have a right to express an opposite point of view.
I honestly and sincerely believe that my constituents and the British people do not want their public representatives to be placed in any financial difficulties because of the circumstances of their position. I believe that the British public do not want Parliament or Government to be impeded because their public representatives, through financial difficulties, have to restrict their activities in the House of Commons. After all, this is a matter of tremendous importance.
I know that certain sections of the Press sometimes snipe at Parliament. One need not mention them in too much detail. I should like, however, to quote a rather interesting passage from the "Sunday Express" which appeared at the time when the last increase was given. It was stated, in a "Sunday Express" editorial:
"This is a question of the dignity, honour and independence attaching to the office of a Member of Parliament. It concerns the recognition which the nation is prepared to give to the men and women who have been chosen by the people to represent them.…
And no M.P. should be afraid to vote for the rise in salary. This is no personal matter, but a measure which will enhance the prestige of the House and increase the usefulness of all Members to the community they serve, long after individuals have passed on—or have been given notice to quit by their constituents."
I sincerely hope that "Cross-Bencher," who sniped at my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) this week—he may snipe at me, I do not

1503
know—will remember that editorial in his own paper. I hope that he will bear in mind that the efficiency of Parliament is of great concern. I should certainly like to invite him down here to talk to him about this matter. I should even be prepared to debate the issue in my constituency.
We must certainly give a lead to public opinion, and we must not insult the British public by assuming that they are immature. After all, Parliamentary democracy is on trial, as previous speakers—the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend—have said. Parliamentary democracy was able to resist totalitarian aggression in a great crisis. Undoubtedly there are still political zealots who would undermine the fabric of our Parliamentary system, who attack it and who would wish to bring into being a monolithic State.
Parliamentary Government is something which all of us have helped to build up in our own humble way, and is something which goes right back into British history. It is something which offers the nation now, in this modern world, a tremendous dynamic; it inspires the Commonwealth and peoples abroad, by our example, to defend and to develop Parliamentary democracy. I go further. I believe that Parliamentary democracy can also rot from within. It can be corrupted, and there are tendencies which illustrate this danger.
I tried to portray this in a humble contribution to the "Manchester Guardian" some time ago. I think in terms of the growth of specialisation, the role of the experts, the idea that we should leave it to some other person. I see that danger in our wider political life, and it can be a danger here. It emphasises that we have to be more active and vigilant as Members of Parliament because of the role of experts and because the specialisation of our own social and economic fabric has meant the growth of the centralisation of government and propaganda. I think of television, irrespective of whether it is private or public enterprise. It can be a tremendous menace to objective discussion and talk. This growth of centralisation, along with the personalisation of politics, is something which can corrupt even our own Parliamentary discussion and practice.
1504
In that sense it is important that we should have an active, vigorous House of Commons which is able to do its job, which is able to fulfil that case work I have mentioned, a House of Commons which has built up in its Members the efficiency necessary for that essential Committee work which has increased through the spate of legislation. It is a House of Commons which always must be vigilant, and even more so today in our modern world.
For that reason, I hope that Members will carefully look at the Report of the Select Committee not in a party sense but as something which really affects the efficiency of a great institution—an institution which has a tremendous impact on world affairs outside this assembly. If we consider the Report in that spirit, eventually we shall reach a decision. If we believe that decision to be right, we should have the courage to say so in no party sense.
7.0 p.m.
Sir Victor Raikes: I have no doubt that if I had been a Member of the Select Committee I should have supported the recommendations which it produced upon the evidence put forward, but nothing that I have heard has changed my view that the most honest way to tackle this question is by a fiat-rate increase rather than by the other methods which have been suggested.
I wish to make one point which has not been touched upon very much. We have talked a good deal about the difficulties which some hon. Members suffer. I want to call attention to our future entrants. There is not the least doubt that the cream of the younger men from parties on both sides dare not enter the House. For instance, there is the younger man on the managerial side, in his thirties. I believe that we need men of that age in Parliament. Such men may be married and have a child, with perhaps another on the way, and they may be beginning to build up a career. Any man like that who wants to enter public life does not want to make a fortune out of it, but he does not want to sacrifice his wife and family to live in penury for 20 years or more. Fewer men of that type will enter the House unless we have a considerable change.
The same applies on the other side, with the rising young trade unionists who

1505
are just the type of men needed on the other side of the House—and on this side as well; I must not speak in any party sense. The young trade unionist has a decent job and is looked after well by his trade union. Trade unions look after their men a good deal better than do some public bodies. The rising young trade unionist has some degree of security. How can he come here to take a job which means that, at the end of it, if he is lucky enough to stay in the House for 20 years, he has either to hang on in ill-health in his old age without private means behind him. He can save nothing for his retirement, and then we get those tragedies which have appeared before the Committee of the Members' Fund.
Mr. Charles Pannell: If a trade unionist enters this House, on more occasions than not he has to resign from his job; and if he loses his seat he has to submit himself again to a ballot of the membership, against his successor.
Sir V. Raikes: I was assuming that he would resign his post, just as the young man in business, in many cases, would have to resign his job; and he might have less chance of getting it back than the trade unionist. Be that as it may, we have to look at the future of Parliament even more than at the troubles of existing Members.
I listened closely to what the Chancellor said about the proposed alternatives. While he was speaking, I had in my mind the whole time the question. "Will any of these alternatives encourage the type of younger men we want to see coming into the House on both sides in future years?" I cannot imagine that the subsistence plan would arouse the slightest enthusiasm in the heart of any man. I do not deny that this subsistence plan would be of some slight help to a certain number of the poorest Members of the House. It would be an undignified alleviation, but it would be an alleviation.
What man or woman, among the brilliant people whom we have on both sides, who would like to enter Parliament would come on the present £1,000 a year, and maybe a subsistence allowance, especially if he or she happens to live in London? Although I am not a London Member, I know that there is some difference between London and country Members, but I do not believe
1506
that any scheme that differs in its treatment as between hon. Members is likely to be acceptable. The London Member has certain advantages. On the other hand, the number of constituents who have to be looked after at all times is colossal. I must say that the subsistence scheme seems to be a bad one from the start.
Mr. Frederick Willey: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there would be unfortunate differences between provincial Members? Some provincial Members, like myself, live in London because we think that we can serve the House better by doing that. It would make an unfortunate differentiation between ourselves and other Members who prefer to live in the provinces.
Sir V. Raikes: I appreciate that. I am not attacking my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I am only too pleased that he has put forward these alternatives at all, but the more we look at the subsistence scheme the more impossible it will appear. My right hon. Friend's other alternatives were variations of an expense allowance in addition to the basic salary. Some of these variations would be worse than useless.
Suppose that we decide to be very careful not to upset the public but that, after all, there ought to be free telephone trunk calls, free secretarial expenses and perhaps even free meals, to some extent, in this House. That is not only undignified but something which does not help the poorest men in the House. It does not help the man who is trying to run two homes and a family on £1,000 a year if he can have a secretary out of a pool when, in any case, he would much sooner have the money than a secretary and do the work himself in order to keep his homes together.
One must face this plainly. A secretarial allowance would be convenient, but it would not be of much help to improve the conditions of the men I am thinking of most. There is one alternative which I do not much like because I should prefer a flat increase, but if the Government do not want a flat increase I think that it would be worth while to consider saying that we should treat the £1,000 a year frankly as a salary in future instead of as Members' remuneration, and that we should have, say, £500 as expenses if they can be claimed over and above that.

1507
I do not say that that is ideal, but I think that it would work. It would mean that a man's £1,000 a year would be fully taxed, so far as he was taxable, and that he would be able to claim up to another £500 for expenses. That is something which is not entirely out of the picture, in comparison with the business world. It is possible. However, if we are prepared to do that, I do not know why we are not prepared to go out for a flat increase.
Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: In his consideration of the £1,000 and the £500, has the hon. Member taken into account the fact that the Select Committee has already indicated that most hon. Members have, as a consequence of their duties, expenses amounting to far more than the £500 a year that he mentioned?
Sir V. Raikes: I had that in mind, but if one takes £750 as an average, as every hon. Members knows quite well, the people who charge the least expenses are the people who are hardest up. Do not let us forget that, as it is very easy to do so. As a matter of fact, if one has plenty of private means, one can have a large house instead of a modest flat and a full-time secretary instead of a part-time one; but I should have thought that £500 is probably a reasonable sum for the expenses of a Member of Parliament in pursuit of his general duties, and that it would not be too far out.
I should have preferred a flat increase, and I say quite frankly to my right hon. Friend that I believe that a number of my hon. Friends and the Government have been unduly scared by the reactions of popular opinion. I have been in this House quite a long time. I voted in favour of the increase from £400 to £600, because I thought it was right to do so, and I supported the increase from £600 to £1,000, and at present I enjoy the biggest majority in my whole Parliamentary history. I do not believe that the reaction of the public would be a very great one, but if we make it a General Election issue, we shall get every sort of bargain between people and every sort of pressure group.
Mr. R. A. Butler: May I ask my hon. Friend what justification he has for saying that in any section of my speech there
1508
was any hint of scare? Secondly, if he is so ready to attack, without very much examination, one suggestion to which it is good to get reactions immediately, I must remind him that I put forward other suggestions. I should also like to get further reactions on the first one, namely, an expenses allowance, to which he referred.
Sir V. Raikes: I should like to make it quite plain that if I gave the impression that my right hon. Friend was showing a spirit of scare in his speech, that was the last thing which I intended to do. What I meant to say, and what I thought I did say, because I am generally reasonably accurate, was that I thought that both the Government and a good many hon. Members of this House had been rather unduly, perhaps I should say, alarmed or troubled, by the original popular reaction. I would never accuse my right hon. Friend of being either scared or a scaremonger.
If my right hon. Friend asks me to refer to the two suggestions, I say, in regard to the first proposal—not the subsistence allowance, but the other one— that I think it is a possible alternative, because we have got very many interests in which a salary is paid and a reasonable amount is also allowed for expenses which must be tied up with the work involved. I think it could be done, but I think the expenses would have to be kept down to a reasonable limit, because I do not think we could have people saying that, because they could charge expenses above their basic salary, they were going to live at the Dorchester, instead of living where they are.
I think that is fair enough, and that it is a possible alternative, although I wonder why the Government think that perhaps the public would prefer it to the flat-rate increase. If the public do prefer it, to be quite frank with the House, I think we should be slightly better off if we could have a salary of £1,000 a year and £500 for expenses which we do incur.
Mr. Mellish: Would not the hon. Gentleman also agree that the public, particularly in London, are aware of the fact that, in every trade union agreement, there is always a London allowance?
Sir V. Raikes: Yes, that is so, but I do not want to be drawn into that argument. I think we should be wise to consider that.

1509
if the Government really feel that they prefer the first suggestion. It is an alternative which might meet the situation.
I am not very happy about the pensions scheme proposal. I think that a non-contributory pensions scheme is bound to bring unpleasant reactions, whatever the cause, but I think that, if we have an increase in salary, whether by means of the Chancellor's first suggestion or by means of a flat increase, it is worth considering, not merely with the Government Actuary, but perhaps with one of the big insurance companies in the City, whether some sort of insurance scheme could not have been devised on the basis of a contribution of £100 or £150 if we are to have approximately £1,500 a year, and that also the £78.000 now in the Members' Fund might well be used to cushion it for the older Members, who have little time in which to contribute towards it.
Having said that, I would add that I believe we are now at the crossroads. I was brought up in the old order. The whole of my background and the whole of my public life is what people used to call the old order, and I am not ashamed of it, but I know that, in this modern world, the whole conception—[Interruption.]
An Hon. Member: Shut up.
Dr. H. Morgan: Shut up yourself.
Mr. Jack Jones: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan), as he has done in recent months, continually to interrupt speeches to which other hon. Members wish to listen?
Dr. Morgan: Further to that point of order. May I say that I always have a great respect for the Chair and for this House, but I think that, on occasions, when an hon. Member is making a ridiculous speech, it is up to someone to say so frankly.
Mr. Speaker: I deprecate, as I must always, excessive interruptions. Occasional interchanges are, I think, inseparable from the conduct of our debates, but hon. Members should confine them to the very minimum
Sir V. Raikes: I take no offence at what the hon. Member has said. I belong to the old order, but the whole Victorian conception of the work of Parliament, the hours of Parliament, the conditions of people who are elected to Parliament, have changed. I am not afraid of the new order, provided that we have the cream of the new order on both sides of the House, but if we stay where we are and do nothing, I prophesy that the Parliament that will be seen in 20 years, or in a decade, will be a Parliament of elderly men, of worn-out men, of incompetent men, and of men who are prepared to take a small salary here because they can get nothing anywhere else.
Worse than that, it may be a Parliament which will include the "spivs," the "smart Alecs" and the tax evaders, who will say, "Oh, yes; if I go to the House of Commons, I can get something on the side." I do not want that kind of House, and I am convinced that, if we act with some courage now, on the lines of one of the proposed alternatives, we can avoid that, and that we shall have a Parliament in future which will not be unworthy of the traditions of the past. The path of progress is so often the path of human understanding.
7.20 p.m.
Mr. R. R. Stokes: I want, at the outset, to support what the hon. Member for Garston (Sir V. Raikes) has just said about what, I believe, is the almost universal view of the House, that whatever is granted should be a flat-rate increase. We should not fiddle about with subsistence allowances and the rest. I will deal a little later in my speech with what the Chancellor said.
At the beginning, I would answer the Chancellor's question to the hon. Member for Garston by saying that the reason why I object to subsistence allowances is that they are of their nature riddled with difficulties, are most unattractive and are very often discriminatory. We want to avoid discrimination. When I read this Report, I said to myself "Thank goodness the Inland Revenue will not be concerned with what the Members' expenses are. They have decided that. Now we need not argue about it any more." I have dealt with a large variety of people who send in expenses accounts. It is an absolute nightmare to think of the Mother of Parliaments

1511
having to work out what hon. Members put in in the way of hotel vouchers, etc. It is outrageous that it should be suggested. I say that with the greatest friendliness to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should not like him to think that I was in any way aggressive. I understand how he is placed.
My hon. Friend who opened this debate said that if some outside body, and not a Select Committee of this House, had been put on to adjudicate what we should have, it was in his opinion more than likely—and I entirely agree—that it would have suggested that we should have a great deal more. I would not hesitate to accept that view. After all, the Members who are so well off that they do not need it need not feel that there is any obligation on them to take it. The Chancellor said that he knew people who did not take all their salary. If there are people like that, that is all right. They can be dealt with in that way.
Let me say something about what the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said. He was to a great extent under a delusion. Possibly he misread the early part of the Report without looking at Appendix VI. He fell foul of what, I think, a number of members of the general public have fallen foul of, in that he conceived the reason why the average expense is £750 is that many hon. Members put in a great deal more. If he studies the matter arithmetically he will see that that is impossible. In fact, if he looks at the Schedule he will see for himself that 66 per cent, of hon. Members put in £650-odd. It is not true that the £750 figure is swollen much by those who claim the full amount. Of course, it is increased from £650 to £750, I agree, but it is not true that it is appreciably swollen by the number of people who claim £1,000, which is a very small percentage of the House. I make that point to get on the record what the facts and figures are.
Mr. Summers: Some of us feel that the figure £750 is misleading because it implies that that is an average of the amount of the salary spent by hon. Members. It is quite clear that it is the result of spending money outside the House which enables that average to be reached.
Mr. Stokes: That may be so. I do not dispute it. It is not true to say that a
1512
higher percentage of people put in the top figure, which was rather the impression which the hon. Member gave me. Before tackling the Chancellor, I want to say something about Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries.
I have never been a Parliamentary Secretary, but I have been a Minister. I am delighted that the Select Committee has reported favourably on both. I hope that some of the idiocy which prevails in Treasury Regulations will be removed in the administration of expenses. I am not talking about personal expenses, but expenses in the conduct of the nation's business and in the best interests of the nation. I want to give examples of things that happened to me which I considered absolutely crazy. On one occasion we were engaged in building up a very considerable plant, which was one of top secret. Many millions of money were involved. We put in some very hard work and concentrated effort, and we managed to save about £1½million. I gave a little party to the people who were mainly responsible, and it cost £37 10s. I had to pay. I thought that was absurd. Any higher business executive would have charged that amount to his expenses account, but not a Minister of the Crown.
Same hon. Members may recall that I held three offices in a very short time. In one of them I had 12 regional offices. I am a great believer in the party spirit. Not having very much brains myself, I like to get other people to do things, and one way to do that is to "jolly" them along. The first time I saw that some of these officers were a little backward in coming forward I gave a party. I had to pay. It was not very much, and it is not that I minded paying; but it made me begin to reflect why some Ministers did not seem to get round in that way. Surely that is not in the best interests of the nation.
I assure the general public that Ministers do not career around in their motor cars from Timbuctoo to Land's End. I remember in my very early days being invited to a swell show at Sadler's Wells and to have supper on the stage afterwards with the present Queen. I naturally went in my Ministerial car. It was a very wet night. I do not mind saying that I took a very attractive lady with me. Two days later I got a bill for £2 15s. for using my official car "for wrong purposes." I am not complaining

1513
in any way, but it seemed to me that this arrangement was really cockeyed.
I have finished my plea that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries should be encouraged to carry out their jobs. I say it in all seriousness. We do not want them to give unnecessary cocktail parties, but when they are dealing with people who are really doing important jobs, a bit of relaxation should not have to come out of a Minister's pocket. I hope that after this little bit of ventilation somebody in the back room will pay attention and will amend the regulations.
Now I come to the Chancellor. I always think that on these occasions first reactions are probably the most accurate. Therefore I will read to him what 1 put down as I listened to him speaking. I came here full of hope. I thought he was probably glad to be back and to have something cheerful to tell the House. This is what I wrote down about my reactions to his proposals: "Disappointing, niggling, unsatisfactory, discriminatory, in effect almost amounts to a means test, unacceptable." I am trying to help the Chancellor, because he knows how important first impressions are. I classify these proposals as typical back-room Treasury stuff, and the fact that the Chancellor has accepted this brief at all—I am being charitable to him—can only be explained by the fact that he has been so preoccupied with much more important affairs that he has not had time to give the matter the serious consideration that we all think it deserves.
I am not saying that the Select Committee's Report is necessarily perfect. I personally would admit that, so far as the pension scheme goes, the matter should perhaps be examined. There may be a case for making it partly contributory. What we want—and I am sure I am right, having talked to a large number of people about this matter in the past few weeks—is enough to live on with certainty, and not a lot of nonsensical argument about whether it has been spent or not. I dislike the Chancellor's proposals because I think they are terribly undignified. I do not see why Members of the Mother of Parliament should be worse treated than all the offspring in the various parts of the Dominions.
I want this put on record. I know these facts are in the Report of the Select
1514
Committee, but unfortunately the public do not read the Report. It seems absurd to me that the Chancellor should dare to propose what he has proposed, when a Member of Parliament in Canada gets £1,450 a year plus £725 a year tax-free, when a Member of Parliament in Australia gets £1,400 a year plus £320 to £720 tax-free and £2 10s. a day when in session, and a Member of Parliament in South Africa gets £1,400, £700 of which is tax-free.
Mr. Clement Davies: The right hon. Gentleman gave the figure correctly as it appears in the Report, which states what a Member of Parliament in Canada got at that particular time. It was, as he said, £1,450 plus £725 expenses, but it has now been increased this year to £3,570.
Mr. Stokes: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for correcting me. I ought to have been aware of that, but I am afraid I was not.
Mr. Beverley Baxter: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to help him with his case? In Canada, in addition to the amount stated by the right hon. Gentleman, Members get free secretarial assistance and free travel right across Canada.
Mr. Stokes: And Canada is a very big place.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The Members' families get that concession too.
Mr. Stokes: I am not asking for all that. I have not got a family, to start with. Let us be serious about this. I know that one sometimes tries to treat a serious subject in a spirit of levity, but this matter is troubling Members a great deal. Here we have our opposite numbers in Canada, Australia and South Africa far better off than we are, and, as the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) says, on top of the figures that I have quoted, they get free secretarial assistance, free travel and other allowances.
Mr. R. A. Butler: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind me of the country in which Members get £2 10s. a day?
Mr. Stokes: In Australia, when in session. That is in addition to the £1,400 a year and a sum varying from £320 to £720 a year tax free.
Mr. Butler: Is the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, saying that one of the suggestions of a similar kind which I have put forward is grossly undignified?
Mr. Stokes: No, I have not come to that suggestion. I dislike the idea of subsistence allowances. I would not mind if the £2 10s. were not paid to Australian Members. I am not insisting on that. But I do not see why the Members of the Mother of Parliaments should be so ridiculously badly off compared with their opposite numbers overseas.
If I were asked my view about secretarial expenses, I would say that I have always wondered since I came into this House—not that I would have made any use of any secretarial assistance, because I am differently arranged—[Interruption.]—I mean that I have got other conveniences—why we cannot find a way of doing it without so much time being spent by Members writing letters. I am on a Select Committee, so that occasionally I have to come here in the mornings, during what are regarded by many people as forbidden hours, and I am horrified to see so many Members of Parliament sitting in the Library and elsewhere pushing pens. Of course, they must deal with their constituencies, but they would be able to do so in half the time if the secretarial arrangements were right, so that they could devote more time to the much more important work of this House and to studying the affairs of the day, reading the newspapers and so on.
The Chancellor asked me about one of his proposals. I will tell him why I think it is wrong, quite apart from the main principle about the subsistence allowance. As 1 said earlier, I thought when I read the Report, "Thank goodness the Inland Revenue have dealt with this thing. They have said that the average expense of a Member of Parliament is accepted by Inland Revenue at £750 a year." What is the use of messing around with sums varying from £100 to £500 which do not half meet the point? It does not seem to me to be the right way to deal with this matter.
Mr. R. A. Butler: I thought the right hon. Gentleman suggested £500 in one of his proposals.
Mr. Stokes: No, I do not think I suggested anything of the kind. I certainly accept the £1,500 proposal; I think
1516
a case has been made out for it. The Inland Revenue have declared that £750 is necessary on the average to a Member of Parliament in the shape of expenses to enable him to carry on his affairs as a Member. If the public could only have this explained to them and if the newspapers would headline it in my way—if only I had a newspaper—there would not be a soul in this country who did not understand the matter.
Many Members are left with £250 a year on which to keep themselves and their families. No person to whom I have spoken would think that a Member was adequately provided for on £250 a year. We ought to make the people understand that fact. It is nothing whatever to do with the cost of living. It is the actual expenses outside living that amount to £750 a year, and in the present situation all that is left to many Members of Parliament is £250 a year to keep himself and his family. The poorest paid worker in the organisation with which I deal would not complain if the matter were explained to him in that way. Unfortunately, it has never been put to people in that way. If people understood that being a Member of Parliament was the worst paid job in the world, there would be less difficulty about it.
I appeal to the Chancellor's sentiment. I do this in great seriousness. Just imagine it being possible for a Select Committee of this House to be able to report this state of affairs to which some of the Members of Parliament have been driven: some have sold or mortgaged their homes; the savings of others which they had before entering Parliament are now exhausted and debts are accumulating; others have sacrificed pension rights which they had established in companies or firms in whose employ they were before entering Parliament; others are not able to afford lunch or dinner in the dining room of the House of Commons, and use only the Tea Room. Gracious goodness me, if the great British public read that and raise one finger in protest against the main proposals of the Select Committee, all I can say is "God help them."
What I ask the Chancellor to do, when he has had time to give the matter the thought which we think it deserves, is to

1517
come forward in an unniggardly, non-discriminatory way with a scheme which will allow us to hold up our heads in pride because we belong to the finest House of Commons in the world.
7.40 p.m.
Mr. Rupert Speir: It is a great honour to follow the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), but I feel that it will become apparent to the House that I cannot indulge in "slap and tickle" in the way he can. I think it only fair to warn hon. Members of that at the outset.
I speak as one who during the last General Election announced that if I was elected to this House I would take a cut of 10 per cent, in my Parliamentary remuneration. Fortunately for myself, I was wise enough to say that that would last only during the period of the country's financial emergency. When Her Majesty's Government came forward with a proposal to give the judges a lax-free allowance of £1,000 a year, I thought that the emergency had come to an end. Accordingly after the lapse of two and a quarter years I resumed my £1,000 a year remuneration. I shall not detain the House by explaining the reasons which decided me to take a cut, but at the time I took my decision I was not under any illusion that a sum of £900 was anything like adequate for the expenses necessarily incurred by an hon. Member of this House in carrying out his Parliamentary duties.
It has been widely said during this debate that the public should be educated about some of the costs incurred by hon. Members. I myself represent one of the largest constituencies in the country and it is far away from London. It may surprise hon. Members to know—it certainly surprised me when I worked it out—that in a year my car is either driven by myself or by others for something like 18,000 miles. The cost of that alone amounts to a total of something like £600 and after that has been deducted from one's Parliamentary remuneration, it means that one is left with £7 or £8 a week to cover all the other many necessary expenses which are incurred.
Even though 18,000 miles a year may sound an immense distance to cover, the fact remains that the electors in many parts of my constituency still do not see me from one year's end to another. I do
1518
not say that they are any worse off on that account, but one cannot get round these immense constituencies unless one is constantly on the go, and it costs me something over £600 a year in order to cover my vast area. There must be many other hon. Members in the same position. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to agree by and large to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee.
Mr. Mellish: Well said.
Mr. Speir: There is one point which I wish to take up. I agree with the Chancellor when he says that a non-contributory pension would be difficult to defend and I think that some modification of the pension scheme would be advisable. I am fortunate in that I have no commitment in the way of a family, and personally I am slightly better off than some other hon. Members, although I do not pay Surtax. But I think something ought to be done fairly soon in this matter, because there must be many hon. Members who are now suffering very acutely.
I wish to point out, as has already been mentioned, that assuming that the Government carried into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee, hon. Members would not be forced to avail themselves of the extra remuneration if their conscience did not allow them to do so, whatever amount might be granted. I myself, by a stroke of the pen, took a cut of 10 per cent, in my salary for two years and it is easy for any hon. Member to go to the Fees Office and to say that he wishes to reduce his salary by a specific amount.
Personally speaking, my conscience would not allow me to take any form of increased remuneration during the lifetime of this Parliament. I consider that I offered myself to the electorate well knowing more or less what the conditions would be and therefore I should abide by the conditions regarding remuneration as they were when I entered this House. However, that does not prevent other hon. Members, if their conscience allows them to do so, from availing themselves of any increase which may be thought desirable. I repeat that if an increase does come about, it is up to individual hon. Members to decide for themselves whether they will avail themselves of such increase or not.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Jack Jones: I wish to follow the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) in his statement that he offered his services at a 10 per cent, reduction of the present salary. That was fair enough. But he did not tell the electorate that he intended to live on the amount which was left. It is the amount on which we have to live that forms the subject matter of this debate. As time goes on the hon. Member will learn that even on the amount of his private income, plus the £900 left after he accepted a 10 per cent, cut, he will be strained to do the job as his constituents will demand that it shall be done.
I wish to make a confession. I am one of those who did not make a return to the Committee when it asked for information on this question. It may rightly be asked, "Why not?" Well, I was rather proud about the thing, and I thought that the evidence was such that the Government surely would have sufficient knowledge of what was going on to make it unnecessary for any hon. Member to produce evidence to bring about an increase in salary.
I could have added to the story told by those who had been hardly put to. I make no apology for speaking as one of the ordinary working Members of this House. Before I came to the House I had a job which was probably more highly paid than any other working man Member in this House. I came into this House from an extremely highly paid industry with my eyes open. Some hon. Members opposite—not many, but some —may say, "Why did you do it?" There are still people in this country—and, please God, there will continue to be— who desire to serve their fellow men despite the effect it may have upon their personal income and home. It was a desire to serve my fellow men which prompted me to leave what is probably one of the highest paid jobs in the steel industry in this country and come to this House for £600 a year.
Financially, I was sadly disillusioned. It worked out at a payment of £11 12s. a week to live in London and do what was right and proper at home. I say to the Chancellor that there is not an hon. Member of this House, whether he lives in London or the provinces, who can put his hand on his heart and
1520
honestly say that £1,000 a year enables him to do all the things that we as Members of the House of Commons demand should constitute the standard of living which we want for all British people.
I claim no credit for it, but I happen to be a staunch teetotaller. I do not smoke. My family are grown up and married and off my hands. In that respect I am in a fortunate position. I have no young children to support. My children are on their own feet, so to speak. Yet I can assure the House that despite that, I cannot carry on. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) knows the job which I formerly did and the standards which are aspired to and attained in that industry. I have gone to the trouble of letting him see my banking account for a considerable period of time. If any hon. Member opposite is opposed to the proposals of the Select Committee, and I do not think there are many who are, I am willing to let them see my pass-book and my financial dealings to prove what I am saying.
That little house has gone. The £500 in War Savings has gone. I do not moan. I am not complaining about it. All I am saying is that it cannot go on like that, otherwise we shall put ourselves into the position of having to offer ourselves to some of the things that we oppose.
It is suggested that hon. Members should find alternative work. I do not know of a steel works within 80 or 90 miles of London where I could offer my services at week-ends or for a few hours during the day. Indeed, having regard to the type of argument that I used to advance at the Dispatch Box, I do not suppose that a works would look too kindly on an application if I made one. But I do not know. I will say this about the steel employers of this country. If I went to my old employers, to the chairman of the board of directors, and put my cards and financial situation on the table, he would do something to see that things did not continue like this.
What the hon. Member for Garston (Sir V. Raikes) has said is true. If this situation is not altered, this House, this Government and this country will deteriorate. Do not let us make any mistake about it. This is a time when the most

1521
sincere and most able brains ought to be gathered on the Floor of the House for our collective benefit industrially, economically and socially and from the point of view of military security. At a time when the best is demanded, we are encouraging the worst by doing nothing about the future of Members.
The trade union question has been stressed. I make no bones about it. My trade union is regarded as a non-political trade union. It is not particularly concerned with political activities, although the members know how to vote at election times, which is very important. Most trade unions today have a waiting list of Parliamentary candidates. We cannot find many men in my industry who have the necessary brains and ability to do this job. [Interruption.]It may be "My God‡" My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) keeps on making statements. He may not like the things that I am talking about, but they happen to be the facts. In that industry there are not many men who are particularly anxious to come to this House. [Interruption.]Might I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington to keep order. It may well be that he is not anxious to listen to what I have to say, but he has a positive and obvious remedy if he does not wish to do so.
Dr. Morgan: So has my hon. Friend. Walk out‡
Mr. Jones: The position is that not many people aspire to be put on the Parliamentary panels. Why is that? It is because the brains and ability that they have can be much better employed at even ordinary levels in the workshops in that great industry. It may be suggested by some that we do not want them here, but I think that most hon. Members and most of the Government will agree that we ought to encourage the best types of men and brains to come here.
What is it that the Select Committee are asking? It is that the job shall be so financed as to make it possible for people to enter the House and feel secure in carrying out their duties as Members. Is that asking too much of a nation such as ours? I am sure it is not.
There is the idea that the electorate will be upset. The average wage in the
1522
steel industry is just under £12 a week. Can it truthfully be said that anyone can do our job in London, and do it correctly, with a part-time secretary, meeting expenses in connection with filing, keeping records and postage, having a small flat and doing things in a reasonable way, and have left an equivalent of that average wage of £12 a week? If any hon. Member can tell me that that is possible, if he will see me afterwards I will give him what I have left in the bank for the information. In fact, I will sign him on as a part-time director of my affairs to save me losing the remainder of the savings which I gathered together when I was in the industry.
Unless the Government do something, the situation can lend itself to some exploitation, even by the trade unions. It is not the first time that I have said things with which my colleagues do not agree, but I am not worried about that. I am convinced that the situation lends itself to exploitation by some of the unions themselves. There are degrees of political standing in the various unions. There are unions who would wish to have increased representation here. There are those who would be prepared to spend more than a fair and reasonable amount in order to get increased representation. In other words, there would be competition in buying seats, and that could lend itself to a state of affairs which no real democrat would wish to see in this House. I say to the Government, quite seriously, that unless something is done to give equity of opportunity for every trade unionist and, indeed, for every aspirant to the great honour of representing a constituency, the situation may be serious.
I represent a constituency in which I was born. This is a little emotional, but it is true. I can go down the side streets there and people say to me, "You do not need to come and canvass us. We knew your parents." That sort of thing makes us proud to be Members of this great assembly representing good people in a decent way. It is for the purposes of maintaining that standard that I make my plea. I do not make it as someone who is unduly worried. As I have said, I was able to put a bit by, and that has helped me out. However, on behalf of those who are not so fortunately placed, and those who want to follow us, and so that there shall be a higher and better

1523
standard in the House to enable us to maintain the dignity, the decency and the good name of British democracy in the Mother of Parliaments, I make my plea to the House, and in particular to the Chancellor, that the Government should do what it ought to do.
7.57 p.m.
Mr. Spencer Summers: This is a difficult enough debate in which to intervene after the remarkable speeches which have been made. It is all the more difficult for one to intervene when it is known that one's views are necessarily more personal than party and that I am one of the lucky ones, as the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) described them, and hold the view that the recommendation of the Select Committee ought not to be implemented now. The House is usually generous—I have never received anything but generous treatment—and I hope that hon. Members will believe that I am trying to distinguish between objective opinion and personal bias. I hope I need say no more than that.
I wish to express a point of view which has not yet been put in the debate. I know for a fact that it is shared by many of my constituents. I believe it is the origin of the Chancellor's approach. I believe that some of these ideas coincide with the thoughts that lay behind the Government's approach today.
I thought it was a little unfair of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) to talk about the "proposals" of the Chancellor. The Chancellor said quite plainly, as I hope he will bear me out, if he is able to listen—I hope I may have his attention for one moment.
Mr. R. A. Butler: I have not missed a single word of my hon. Friend's speech. Our object is to try to get the reaction of the House. As my hon. Friend is about to defend me, I shall be only too delighted to listen to what he has to say.
Mr. Summers: I hope that my right hon. Friend will believe me when I say that my shaft was intended for his neighbour and not for himself.
It seemed to me very unfair to describe the information which he gave us as
1524
"proposals." I think I interpret him correctly when I say that he wished the House to be in possession of all available information so that collective opinions might thereafter follow based on information and not on superficial knowledge. I did not understand that proposals of any kind had come from the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Butler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is correct in his interpretation. I might say that, being a very old hand, I expected people to read into what I said all sorts of things which were not there. Nevertheless, I thought it was worth taking the risk because this is an open debate.
Mr. Summers: I want to make it plain that I accept the evidence of hardship given by hon. Members on both sides of the House. That point need not be laboured. But there is widespread hardship in many households outside the House which is at least as great as that to which hon. Members have alluded. We should all be well advised to approach the question rather from the point of view of the future of Parliament than of the present position of Members who may or may not be here after the next General Election. Most speakers have, in fact, adopted that approach.
Something has to be done. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) said that this situation cannot go on, and I accept that. But what we are really considering is whether, in the middle of 1954, the recommendations of the Select Committee should be implemented. I submit that there are cogent arguments for saying that this is not the time for them to be implemented, and I believe that it is because of some of those arguments that the Government have made their statement that there are other claims upon public resources which, from a human point of view, are at least as urgent as those of which we are speaking today.
Hon. Members have said, "We hear that story every time the subject of Members' salaries comes up. There will always be claims, and if that is to be the paramount argument nothing will ever be done to improve our position." Ever since the war, until the last two years, we have had inflation of a virulent kind. We have been climbing up and up,

1525
trying to keep pace with the conditions of life. Latterly, we have seen much evidence to suggest that we have reached a position of stability, and only at such a time is it possible to sort out social priorities. We all know that the cost of doing anything for Members is trifling, but the repercussions of so doing may be widespread, and it is these repercussions, which people believe to be important, which have prompted the Government to say, "Not now; other people first." If we accept the fact that we are reaching a period of somewhat stable conditions we should deal first with the most urgent claims, both from a public and a human point of view, and not put ourselves at the head of the queue, however cogent the arguments may be for saying that this position cannot continue.
Mr. Lewis: Will the hon. Member tell me of any body of people in this country, other than Members of Parliament, which has not had some amelioration of its conditions or improvement in its salaries, wages, professional earnings or pensions since 1946, and how many people have to meet the costs and expenses incurred by Members of Parliament. If the hon. Member wishes, he can include such people as local government officers or military pensioners. Can he tell me of any class of people which has not had some amelioration in its conditions since 1946?
Mr. Summers: The hon. Member is asking that our so-called occupation shall, be compared with that of other classes of people to whom he has referred. The Select Committee's recommendation, which I imagine he supports, is that Members of Parliament shall be singled out to have made good to them the depreciation in the buying power of money which has occurred since 1946. I think I remember the Select Committee's Report sufficiently well to say that it calculates that a fraction under £1,500 is the present-day value of the £1,000 a year when it was first introduced. It was for that reason that it sought to justify the figure of £1,500. In other words, it said that if people wanted Members of Parliament to be in a position comparable to that in which they were when the £1,000 was given, £1,500 was the appropriate figure.
Mr. Clement Davies: I am certain that my colleagues on the Select Committee
1526
would all agree that that was not what influenced us. We merely stated it as a fact, and nothing more.
Mr. Summers: Very often the facts can only be interpreted as justifying the recommendations. As the right hon. and learned Member was Chairman of the Select Committee, I naturally accept what he says, but he must permit me to put an interpretation upon the Report which he did not put upon it.
Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member has said that Members of Parliament should not put themselves at the head of the queue. All I am trying to point out to him is that every person in the country except Members of Parliament has had an amelioration of his conditions since 1946. I ask him to quote anyone else who has not.
Mr. Summers: There are scores of people living on pensions and fixed incomes who have not had any amelioration since 1946. They may not be in employment, but there are scores who have had no improvement in their position, because the cost of living has been rising all the time.
I believe that it was because of the repercussions which would follow a substantial increase in our salaries, comparable to the depreciation in the buying power of money, that prompted the Government to take the view that this is not the psychological moment to carry out the Select Committee's recommendations. They have therefore put forward other schemes to deal with the position. I want to make it clear that I do not like their alternatives. I believe they amount to doing the right thing in the wrong way, the right thing being to make up our minds that this situation cannot continue.
The question of when it is right and proper for the conditions of service in this House to be improved need have no bearing upon a General Election, or upon the arguments which parties may advance. It is purely a matter of timing. Some time ago all hon. Members accepted the principle of equal pay, and so far as I am aware this had no effect upon the arguments advanced at the last Election and I do not see why this question should do so at the next Election. The argument for improving the position of Members is justifiable, but this is not

1527
the time to do it. It is upon those grounds that I believe that we should foe justified in declining to accept the Select Committee's findings at this stage.
The need to do something to make sure that Parliamentary democracy works is a justification for setting up the Select Committee, but it has no bearing on the question whether we should do something in 1954, any more than it had any bearing when hon. Members opposite had it within their power to do the same thing towards the end of their term of office. Parliamentary democracy is a very long-term affair, and to say that this moment of time is the vital and imperative moment when this sort of thing must be done, otherwise democracy will crumble, is to lose all sense of perspective. I agree that the position cannot go on much longer, but this is not the moment to act, and I believe that there are many other hon. Members who think that other claims should come before ours.
8.9 p.m.
Mr. S. N. Evans: I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) did not emulate the generous approach of his colleague, the hon. Member for Garston (Sir V. Raikes). There is an old saying, "They laugh at scars who never felt a wound," and, by Jove, it is true in connection with this matter. The British people are beginning to look upon the ducking and diving which has surrounded this question with growing amusement, tinged with contempt. It is not their wish that Members of Parliament should suffer penury in the discharge of their duties.
I am very disappointed that the Government have not taken the bull by the horns and accepted that part of the Select Committee's recommendations that advocates a plain, fiat salary of £1,500 a year. I cannot myself subscribe to the idea of non-contributory pensions. Neither am I in favour of any of those suggestions that have been made today. I accept the bona fides of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we appreciate the agreeable way in which he put forward his suggestions, which I shall not call proposals; but this is only playing with the problem, and it is inexcusable.
There is very serious hardship among some of my Parliamentary brethren. I
1528
intervene in the debate as one who has activities and interests outside this House of an intellectually satisfying and financially rewarding character. It was because of my knowledge that some of my colleagues are having a very bad time that I felt compelled, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to catch your eye and to speak in fairness to them. There are at this moment county council physical jerks organisers who are getting more money than we are. Purchasing agents of mental institutions are getting more money than we are. This will not do.
The Government should have the courage of their convictions. They know that this hardship exists and they know what the inevitable consequences will be. What is the amount of money involved? Three-fiftieths of id. of every £ this House levied in taxation last year. It is really not good enough for the Government to play about with this issue in the manner they are doing. The Prime Minister is the man to settle this. The Prime Minister's position in this country is unique. By his indomitable courage and matchless oratory in what was probably the darkest hour of British history, he has not only won for himself an historical future but carved for himself an enduring place in the respect and affection of his contemporaries. He could settle this matter. He has only to get up at that Box or go to the microphone and say, "The need here is great not only in terms of human hardship but in terms of the future of the House."
It has been said in the debate already that the quality of Members of Parliament is bound to decline if this parsimonious treatment of Members is continued. I do not want to stress the humanitarian aspects of the matter too much. I would rather that some of my colleagues who have experience of them related what is happening to them and their wives and children. I can only assume that it is modesty that keeps them glued to their seats.
Mr. Lee: Pride.
Mr. Evans: But what is the position? It is just as important that the quality of those who sit on the Opposition Front Bench should be high as it is that that of those on the Treasury Bench should be high. I think it is important that the men who sit on the Opposition Front Bench should be men of intellect, experi

1529
ence and integrity. When a man, on the transference of political power, walks out of the Government but remains a Member of Parliament, he is dropped from £5,000 to £1,000 a year, a savage, cruel, almost barbarous cut that should not be perpetrated any longer. The Government really should grasp this nettle, if it is a nettle, although I do not think that the electoral consequences would be detrimental to a Conservative Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) has just asked, what other section of the community has had no cost-of-living bonus since 1946? The argument is, "This is not the time. We know we ought to have this increase, but this is not the moment." When will it be the moment? We are not supposed to tag along like tin cans tied to electoral posteriors. We are supposed to give a lead. We are the nation's leaders, and the function of leadership is leading, giving a sense of inspiration and purpose which make ordinary people extraordinary. That is our job, and we shall be lacking in courage if we do not do it. I accuse the Government of lack of courage in not saying these things.
If this is not done, what is to happen? Inevitably the House will be peopled by the wealthy, independent of their Parliamentary salaries, and by others who are financed by outside organisations. Will that be a welcome development? Will it not be that such Members will inevitably tend to think in terms of the interests of the financing organisations first, before their duties as Members of Parliament? I say that this is a very grave risk indeed. The whole strength of our democracy, that has to maintain itself in the face of great threats in the world, is that this House is truly representative of every income group and section of the nation. The greatness of the House does not lie in the wisdom to be found here. It lies in the fact that the House is representative of every nook and cranny of the Kingdom and every section of the population.
Some of the letters that I have read in the Press will not bear examination. They talk about Parliament being a part-time occupation. Members of Parliament cannot dodge in and out of employment like cuckoos in a cuckoo clock, getting a job for a week at Easter or Whitsuntide, and a bit longer in the Summer Recess. This
1530
is a full-time occupation, and it is going to stay a full-time job, because I doubt very much, barring a war or an earthquake or something of like exceptional character, whether either party will have a majority sufficiently large to enable any considerable number of Members to be away at any one time. Probably 50 or 75 will be the largest majority in the next 10 or 20 years, so that, if something very exceptional and unfortunate does not happen, Members of Parliament will inevitably be glued to the House.
So we are going to be professionals, whether that is a good thing or not. There is a lot to be said for professional politicians, and I speak as an amateur. I would remind the House of W. G. Grace, G. O. Smith and Archie Maclaren. There have been some good amateurs. Of course, amateurs are sometimes a bit costly. I think there is a lot to be said for the professionals, and when I look across the Atlantic at the Government of business men, I think there is a lot to be said for the professional politician. I therefore believe that it is necessary for us to take into account that service in the House will very largely be of a full-time character.
I want to associate myself with the remarks which have been made about the need to attract young people into the House. This House is getting a bit old, and the second haif of the 20th century will bring new problems for which we want new men with new ideas. How shall we get them here on the present pitiful salary? Salary? In my time certain words seem to have changed their meaning. One is "democracy" and another is "income." How can anybody describe this £1,000 as income? The Select Committee said that £750 of it goes in expenses. Who can live on a fiver a week?
The alternatives which the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested might easily lead to malpractices. At any rate, there would be a temptation if we had to come here to clock in. Members of Parliament clocking in? What is to stop us from clocking in and then clearing off again? Who knows whether I am in Wednesbury or in London? This suggestion will not do. Much the cleanest and straightest thing to do is for the Government to say to the country, "This £1,000 a year is

1531
totally inadequate for Members to do the job properly, to live decently, to maintain their families in Sunderland, or Newcastle, or Cardiff or wherever they are, and at the same time to perform Parliamentary duties in London, which means staying at a hotel, or at any rate somewhere, for four nights a week. These people need £1,500, and we should give it to them." When I went to stay at my hotel in 1945 it was 17s. 6d. for bed and breakfast. Now it is 32s. 6d. If I had not been fortunate to have these other activities of which I have spoken, I should have had to clear out to some dosshouse in Camden Town.
I have not been very proud of the benches opposite this afternoon. Hon. Members opposite are dodging the column. They have simply been looking for excuses. Peter Wentworth, about 360 years ago, said we came into this place not to be time-servers but to serve God and the people. I quote that from memory. He said we came not to be time-servers and rumour feeders. But if men see their only road for economic advancement as political advancement, will they not be compelled to be time-servers?
I am all in favour of the party system, which is the best system which mankind has yet evolved for the conduct of its affairs. I think it needs a few heretics, and I could name one, but modesty prevents me from doing so. A lot of the things which we contribute to the debates on the Floor of the House are previously discussed in Committee Room 14. Both parties have their meetings upstairs, and often the real battle takes place at those meetings because then, away from the public gaze, we can get out our daggers and broken bottles without inhibition.
It is very important that these debates upstairs should be vigorous. But how can they be vigorous if men see political advancement as the only way to satisfy their economic needs—in other words, an assurance that they will be in the next Labour or Tory Administration? Will not these men temporise? These men would have to think through their stomachs, and to think through the stomachs of their families—families with perhaps three or four children. These things have to be taken into account, because they play a very important part.
1532
I want to see this House vigorous and I want to see a good deal of independence and freedom of expression within both parties.
Does the House know that two of the country's delegates to the Council of Europe at Strasbourg in recent years could not have gone had I not lent them the money? That is true. Both of them paid it back. But what a thing to happen—that men should be reduced to this level.
Referring to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), I would not agree that the trade unions will take all the seats in the House, but in any event I am not afraid of the trade unions. I am afraid of other, less respectable organisations getting hold of people, putting their names on their notepaper and making them dummy directors, giving them £200 or £500 a year, as the case may be. There will be a strong temptation for men faced with domestic responsibilities, heavy expenses in London and heavy expenses at their homes in the provinces, to succumb to blandishments of this kind; and that is what I want to guard against.
The humanitarian aspects of this matter are very great, and I understand them, but there is something here even more important, and that is the quality of the people we shall get in the House. I therefore say to the Government, "Have done with this ducking and diving. It is unseemly. There will be no loss of votes. The people of this country do not want their legislators on the cheap. The British people are as smart as paint; they know the temptations to which men are subjected when they are reduced to penury, because many of them have themselves experienced penury."
I therefore tell the Government that I do not lake the suggestions which have been made from the benches opposite. They are an evasion. They are trying to give the same thing without appearing to give it. I say to the Government, "Have the courage of your convictions and do the right thing by the House of Commons, by the men who serve in it now and the men who will be coming after the next General Election. By doing so you will incur no electoral odium—because I fear that that is the animating thought in your mind."
8.29 p.m.
Mr. John Arbuthnot: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) suggested that the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were considering the matter from the point of view of electoral odium, but electoral odium does not enter into it at all. He also accused my right hon. Friend of lacking courage. But by far the easiest thing for my right hon. Friend to do would have been for him to say, "This is what you have asked for. I will give it." It is because my right hon. Friend is a man of courage and realises that there are far greater implications behind this matter than the actual sum involved that he has taken the line which he has adopted today.
A far bigger issue is involved than the amount of money which might be paid to hon. Members. We are being asked to increase the emoluments or the expenses of Members at a time when the nation is just coming through an economic crisis, at a time when we have old-age pensioners on 32s. 6d. a week, and when it is of vital importance for the future health and prosperity of the nation that the over-pressing burden of taxation should be reduced.
This is the time at which we—the Mother of Parliaments—the leaders of the nation, are being asked to increase our own expenses allowance or to increase our own emoluments. The repercussions of that throughout the country from the point of view of other people who are on fixed incomes and who are in greater need than Members of Parliament will be enormous. People in the lower income groups are very hard up against it at the present moment, and I feel that the Chancellor would have every cause to complain if he felt so inclined at the inconsistency of—
Mr. F. Willey: I think that the hon. Gentleman is dealing with a crucial point in the eyes of himself and his hon. Friends. That is the question of time. What has happened since the time when the Select Committee was created? After all, the Government took the initiative in proposing a Select Committee, and the House set it up.
Mr. Arbnthnot: No, the Government were asked to set up a Select Committee by hon. Members on the benches opposite. Do not let us have any difference of opinion about that.
Mr. Willey: That surely was the time when the decision ought to have been taken. The Government could then have taken the view that the time was not opportune. That has now gone by default.
Mr. Arbuthnot: The Government were asked to set up a Select Committee. [Interruption.] I want to make my own speech in my own way. Other hon. Members who take a different view have not been interrupted by those of us who profoundly disagree with them, and I hope that they will extend the same courtesy to us.
I feel that at this moment it is vital for the future of this country that the example of economy should be set. If the example to be set in this Mother of Parliaments is to be one of raising our own salaries or giving ourselves a bigger allowance for expenses, the consequences throughout the country will be disastrous. The Chancellor has brought this country round from an economic point of view. One has only to look at the increasing value of the £ on the black market abroad and the greater freedom of choice which is available at the present moment, to see the results of some of the steps which my right hon. Friend has taken. If we applaud my right hon. Friend for doing what he has done, it is not right that we should at the same time urge him to do the very opposite in raising our own salaries, and set the pace for fresh demands.
There is one special case to which I want to refer, that of the junior Ministers. I believe it is so cast-iron that something really must be done. Junior Ministers are not allowed to earn anything in any other way.
Mr. Lewis: Nor are the coal miners.
Mr. Arbuthnot: The coal miner at toe coalface is earning £1,000 a year.
Mr. Lewis rose—
Mr. Arbuthnot: Junior Ministers are deprived of their other earnings. Furthermore, they cannot set their expenses—and they have just the same expenses as we back benchers—against the £1,000 Member's salary; they can only set them against £500. To allow a position of that kind to continue seems to me to be the height of absurdity.

1535
There seem to me to have been two major causes beyond the control of the Select Committee which weakened the case that they put forward. In saying this, I would emphasise that I am in no way criticising the Committee. The first weakness in the case is that the evidence brought before the Committee could not be the subject of cross-examination. The series of figures submitted may well have referred to different things or different circumstances as far as different Members were concerned. By the nature of the Committee, it was impossible to probe the figures as thoroughly as one would like to do and as one would have been able to do in evidence before a court of law.
The other weakness is that average figures were inevitably produced. The figures for a Member in London are totally different from those of a Member in a constituency outside London. The circumstances of their respective expenses do not correspond. To average the figures and say that the average expenses of a Member of Parliament are £750 a year is largely meaningless, because of these different circumstances. In that way one can, perhaps, read too much into the Report of the Select Committee.
We have heard a great deal about hardship, and I have no doubt that there is hardship amongst many of our colleagues. That hardship can be brought to an immediate end by the Member concerned. Every one of us knows perfectly well that at least half a dozen other people would like to take his place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheapjack."] If any Member feels that the people who are anxious to come here in his place are worse than he is, that is a presumption which few of us feel.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: Why not let one come in your place?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I am not one who complains at the hardship. If I felt like that, I would take the necessary action. It is extremely important that we should look at this from the point of view of what the future of this place will be. There are two things that we can do. Either we can increase our salaries or give ourselves increased expenses, in which case there is a danger of this place attracting more professional politicians than it has; or we can encourage people
1536
to develop outside interests, which would keep them in touch with what is going on in the outside world.
There is a grave danger of this House getting out of touch with the conditions in the world today. I recognise as well as anybody that there is a problem, and I believe that the real solution is to modify the procedure of the House so as to make it possible for people to do outside work and to keep in touch with events.
Mr. Walter Monslow: Before I came to this House, I was an industrial officer and I had to work in six counties. One day I would be in Newcastle, the next day in South-port, another in Manchester, and another in Wigan. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that I could follow that work here? It would be physically impossible.
Mr. Arbuthnot: I am not suggesting that the hon. Member could follow that particular work, but I feel that the proportion of those Members who have outside interests and connections and are in touch with the day-to-day happenings of the world outside should be maintained, and we should not allow the House to become composed entirely of professional politicians. I am perfectly certain that the trade union movement is looking for young and promising people who will be able to uphold the banner of trade unionism. The Press are looking for people able to write, and there are many other directions in which outside contacts can be maintained. The value of the person with those contacts to this House is very great.
Mr. H. Hynd rose—
Mr. Arbuthnot: I have given way several times and I have suffered a certain amount of interruption. I do not think I should give way again.
I believe it is not beyond the ingenuity of this House to devise a procedure which will enable the best brains to keep in touch with the normal course of life outside this place and at the same time give their services here. It means a modification of the procedure of the House, but I am quite sure that a Committee could produce a scheme that would get over that difficulty.
A strong case has been made out for increased financial help, but in view of

1537
all the circumstances I believe the greatest service we could render to the nation in this matter would be to recognise that though that case has been made out the best method of dealing with it would be for us for the time being to forego it.
8.44 p.m.
Mr. Clement Davies: I hope the House will forgive me for intervening in this debate, but I want to say that the view that has been taken by my colleagues and myself is that we were asked by the House to undertake a task and we did our best to carry out that work. We have produced the Report, and it is for the House to express its views upon it. I rise tonight not to advocate this Report in any shape or form, but I think it might be of assistance to hon. Members if I explained a few matters which have arisen during the course of this debate.
In the first place, may I thank all those who have spoken for the very kind references made to my colleagues and myself. I should like to say at once that anyone who had the honour and privilege of presiding over the Committee day after day, as I had, would realise that one could not have better, more conscientious or more hard-working colleagues. They were drawn from both sides of the House and represented all shades of opinion. I am deeply grateful to them for all the work they did, and for the tremendous assistance they were to me in drafting this Report.
We were asked to find out the facts about three matters: One was the Members' Fund, the second was the position of Members today with regard to their expenses, and the third was what was the position in the other countries, either Commonwealth or foreign? I think there was a misconception in the minds of some hon. Members, not merely confined to those who are not on the Government Front Bench, that all we were asked to do was to ascertain the facts and present those to the House. But that is not so. When we are instructed by the House to find facts, we are also under the Standing Orders of the House expected to make our recommendations, and that is why we made them.
There can be not the slightest doubt that on the facts as they came before us the amount that has been paid to hon.
1538
Members, and is being paid today, is insufficient. There could be not the slightest doubt about that. I want also to say this, that nearly 400 Members were good enough to take me into their confidence and put their financial position as plainly as they could before me. I am glad to say that even I do not know which individual Member submitted any particular case. Each one of them had a code number. The code number was known to the clerk and I could ask him for any assistance, but I do not know the name of a single Member who sent information. So far as my colleagues were concerned, they did not even know the code number, they had only the excerpts from the particulars sent in.
The description of what we found on reading all those reports has been set out by us in paragraph 27. Reference has been made to it already, but I want to refer once more to what we set out there, namely—
"In their answers to the questionnaire, a considerable number of Members have made it clear, beyond any doubt, that they cannot, on the £1,000, afford the expenses which they deem necessary for carrying out their Parliamentary duties efficiently and, at the same time, maintain a reasonable standard of living for themselves and their families."
That is a general, true description from the facts as they were presented to us. We then go on to give certain instances, with which I need not trouble the House, because hon. Members can read them for themselves. However, I think I am entitled to use this description, the financial condition, and the worries in which some hon. Members find themselves today in meeting their responsibilities to their families can only be described by the use of one word, grim.
Then, having found that as a fact, what recommendation were we to make? What then lay before us? Not merely the present condition of hon. Members of the House but, as has been pointed out by Member after Member, what kind of House would we have in the future; who would be tempted to come here when the facts were such as we had found them? This is not only the Mother of Parliaments, this also should be the pattern of Parliaments, and it ought to be attracting men of the highest quality from all walks of life. We set out in paragraph 54 what we felt was required.
"In the considered judgment of Your Committee, the payment made to Members

1539
of Parliament should be of such an amount as to enable men and women from all walks of life to enter this field of public service without finding the financial sacrifice for themselves and their families too great Your Committee believe that the enduring strength and authority of Parliament depends upon the quality of its Members. Qualities of temperament, character, ability and experience are needed. The House of Commons must also be representative of the people, and should not be drawn from certain sections only; the field of choice should be wide. Few would support the idea of a House of Commons composed principally of full-time politicians in the sense of men and women cut off from any practical share in the work of the nation."
Then comes the following:
"It would be no less damaging to the country if the House were to become a place where Members could not give of their best because of a dominating need to escape from financial pressure."
That describes the attitude, the approach and the opinions of my colleagues and myself. We did our very best to describe what we felt was necessary in order to attract, as we say, the finest men from all walks of life to represent the country.
As one hon. Member has already said very rightly, and we were very conscious of it, democracy is on the defensive. To my mind it has been more on the defensive during my time than it had been for a very considerable time. When I was young I thought that the battle of democracy had been won, but we have had to see democracy fighting through two world wars in order to maintain the independence of the people who are represented in democratic countries. Therefore, the highest quality is needed among Members of Parliament.
That being so, we then had to consider how adequate was this £1,000, which is not remuneration, not a salary and not a recompense. We had in our minds the whole time the words with which recommendations were made to the House on this subject as long ago as 1911, when conditions were very different, by Mr. David Lloyd George who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. I must point out that conditions then were different not merely because of the difference in money values. As I said in an intervention earlier today, we merely mentioned those figures because there was the fact, but the composition of the House at that time was entirely different from its composition today. Nevertheless, it was felt
1540
at that time that an allowance or a grant should be made in order that people might be enabled to come into the House.
I want to refer here to one or two leading articles in "The Times." I must say here and now that I felt on reading them and on considering them with great care, as naturally one would do, that the writer or the two writers, if there were two, had not read the Report and had just come to a conclusion on certain matters in the Report which they glanced at and then written the articles. They pointed out the danger that may arise from the wrong person coming into this House, whatever that may mean. To us the real damage might be done in quite the other way, in that men or women who ought to be in the House might be kept out because of the present circumstances.
The next question that we had to consider was what became of the £1,000. We found that in 1946 or 1947 the expenses of a Member of Parliament, as allowed by the Inland Revenue, came to about £500, which is 50 per cent, of the allowance that was granted. Incidentally, one must point out, first, that the Inland Revenue very rightly treat Members of Parliament strictly. Secondly, the only expenses that the Inland Revenue will allow are those which are wholly and exclusively and necessarily spent in the performance of Parliamentary duty. If the expenses do not come within that definition the Inland Revenue will not allow them. Now we are told that the average had gone up from £500 to £750. There is this also to be pointed out, that that £750 did not comprise all the expenses that Members of Parliament had incurred in what the individual Member of Parliament regarded as necessary for the purposes of his duty, for example, expenses of entertaining in this House.
I shall have to come back to this because of the suggestions made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so I may mention here that while individuals vary they also vary very much because of the differences in constituencies. The London Member will have the advantage of free telephone calls. The country Member does not have that advantage, but the London Member—as we saw from the evidence put before us by the London Member—has to do vastly more entertaining than the Member from the Provinces. Every hon. Member who is married knows this, and even those who are

1541
not married know of it, because they have to send someone else to an engagement in their place. Especially has that been so in the last two Parliaments in which the majority has been so narrow and the Whips so strict.
It may very well be that an hon. Member has an important engagement in his constituency which has been arranged days or weeks beforehand but he cannot go to it. What does he do? He turns to the one upon whom he can always depend—he asks his wife to go. If he went himself he would have his free ticket, but he has to pay for his wife's ticket and to pay for everything with regard to that function. What is more, that is not allowed by the Inland Revenue authorities as an expense, so the £750 does not really cover all the expenses which a Member has to undertake. It only covers what the Inland Revenue regards as expenses "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" spent in maintaining his position as a Member of Parliament.
All kinds of suggestions were put before us, and we have set them out fully. They included the same suggestions as have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer today. We considered them, not at one meeting, but at several meetings. We went through them and some appealed to us very strongly. We have set out what they were, but we came to the conclusion, as I have pointed out, that constituencies differ. The position in an urban constituency is very different from that in a large rural area. The position in a London constituency is different from that in a Scottish or a Welsh one. Individual tastes and individual management are entirely different.
Having gone through all that, we said that there was only one thing for it, that was to make a straightforward, simple rise of £500. We should let the hon. Member himself or herself spend that in the way the Member decides is the best way. He or she knows far better than anyone else how to husband the small resources with which he or she has to carry on this very important, this highly honourable, privileged position of representing the people and maintaining a position which will command respect amongst them. That is our explanation why we make this straightforward, simple suggestion, leaving it to hon. Members to deal with the matter themselves.
1542
I am surprised at the reference by the Chancellor to the Members' Fund. I was instrumental in persuading other hon. Members and the Government of the day, when Mr. Baldwin was Prime Minister, to start that Fund. It was as far as we could get in those days, and I have been one of the trustees ever since that time. It is the most pathetic Committee on which I have ever served. Old Members of this House, men whom I have known and respected, and who have carried on because of their pride and position, pass away, and we receive the sad news of their death. Then it may be three or four months later there comes an application for assistance from the widow which is subjected to the most rigorous means test.
All we could give in those days was £250 for a man who had broken down in health and £150 to his widow on his death. Deducted from that was any bit of other income they had. That was the position then. We came to the House and said that we have had some very hard cases and we asked for a little more latitude to deal with them. The House altered the position and we have carried on since.
There was a movement to ask the Government to set up this very Committee. We as trustees went to see the Prime Minister with regard to the condition of that Fund. It is true that we have today in the Fund a sum amounting to £78,400. But we pointed out in the statement which we laid before the Prime Minister that as soon as a General Election came, speaking from experience of previous elections, the chances were that the expenditure involved in making these small grants would be greater than the income.
We also felt, and this too was included in the statement to the Prime Minister, that the amounts we were paying to these people were insufficient. We suggested raising them by the small sum of £50 for men and £25 for their widows. At once, to use the usual words we found ourselves "in the red." The expenditure exceeded the income. Naturally my colleagues and I considered the position was quite unsuited to meet the case of men or women who had served this House faithfully over a number of years.
As the House knows, ultimately we decided—and I might mention that we were moderate and restrained in our

1543
action—that after 15 years' service a Member might receive a pension of £500. The chances were that in 15 years he would have had to fight at least four elections. After 10 years he might receive £350, and again he would probably have had to fight at least three elections.
Then we argued that leaving it baldly in that way would not meet the case we had in mind of a man who had served this House and reached an age when it would be impossible for him to get another post or to earn his living in another way. During his years in this House he would not have been able to put by any savings— how could he? In many cases, as we knew from the evidence before us, men had sacrificed the pension they would have received had they not become Members of this House.
We said, "Very well, we will lay down these terribly stringent conditions. A man may come here at 21 and may then serve for 19 years, but he does not count for pension for the whole of that time. He will begin to count for pension only after he has passed 40. Even then he will not get the pension unless he serves for 10 years. If he leaves the House at 55 or is broken down by that time, he cannot get anything until he reaches 65." Is that not moderate? That is not being generous. Those are the conditions that we laid down.
We then said, "What is to happen to the man who breaks down?" Let us take the case of a young man who comes in at 21 and is here until he is 42 or 43 and then breaks down. I have known it happen. We said, "There is the Members' Fund. We will use that." We said that we would ask the House to raise the Parliamentary allowance from £1,000 to £1,500 and we hoped the House would agree to double the contribution which is made, increasing it from £1 a month to £2 a month.
Besides the case of the man who has broken down, there is the case of the man of 55 who has now left the House, having served his 15 years from 40 to 55, and is not allowed a penny piece. Where is he to get a position at 55? Until the pension arrives at 65, there is the Members' Fund. I must confess that I was rather surprised that that was the position. We have made it as clear as we can in the Report.
1544
Ought the pension to be contributory? I think that everyone would like to make it contributory. That is the regular thing. In nearly every case of a pensionable post, whether it is the Civil Service, ordinary public service or a company, the pension is contributory.
Mr. Lewis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a slip. That is not true in the case of the Civil Service. The Civil Service pension is non-contributory.
Mr. Davies: I am sorry. I agree. However, is there any position in any walk of life comparable to our position here? A man comes in here at any age —he may be young, he may be middle-aged, or he may be old—and nobody knows how long he will remain here. He may be here a very short time. He may be fortunate, like myself, in that I have been here for 25 years. Nevertheless, at any moment one's constituents can change their minds. Believing in democracy, as I do, I should certainly say, "I agree with you. I cannot complain." Could anything be made to work on such a basis?
Suppose a Member comes here for five years and pays his contributions for five years, and is then thrown out. He may then say, "I never want to see that place again." In all other cases, he is entitled to ask for the return of the money which he has contributed. Yet it may be that five years later he changes his mind and comes back to the House. He will then have to find the money again and pay it back to start the pension scheme operating again for him. This sort of thing is almost impossible to work out.
We found that it was necessary today to allow Members, so that they might meet their expenses as Members of Parliament, a sufficient sum so that they would be enabled to continue the work of the House without the financial pressure upon them being too great, and we decided that it would be necessary to give them £1,500 per year. If there has to be a contribution, then that £1,500, as I am sure all of us would agree, would have to be raised, and that is why we link the two together. If a contribution has to be made, then every Member of this House would have to reconsider, or would wish to reconsider, the figure of £1,500.
Why did we not do that at that time? Not only did we feel that it was almost

1545
impossible to work it on a contributory basis, but we felt that it would be more honest to the public and the House and to everybody else to make it non-contributory, because, otherwise, we would be pretending that we were paying it out of our own pockets when the money came from the Treasury before we could pay it out. It was a much more straightforward system than any contributory one. These are the explanations of the matters into which we were asked to inquire, and these are the reasons why we made our recommendations.
There is only one final point. The attention of the House has already been drawn to what is happening in other Parliaments, both in the Commonwealth and in foreign countries. We have set them up, but what I am perfectly sure both sides of the House would agree we all desire, and what is essential for democracy, is that the representatives who come to this House should be of the best of their kind, ready to serve their country devotedly in every way, and without having, all the time, the fear of being in financial difficulties.
Mr. Scholefield Allen: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, may I point out to him that, although he made reference to the Members' Fund and pointed out the sums that would be paid to former Members or their widows, I do not think he made it clear that, in many cases affecting this side of the House, the Members' Fund gave nothing at all until the Member concerned had been a Member for 10 years?
Mr. Davies: I assumed that the hon. and learned Gentleman would know that. There is also this further point. Under the new proposal, we ask for a certain amount of latitude so that a Member need not have been here for 10 years, but that we can make a grant if he has not been here for that period.
9.13 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I feel I should be expressing the feelings of all of us in all quarters of the House if I were to begin by expressing to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) the thanks of the whole House, to him and his Committee, not only in regard to its
1546
Report, but because this Report, in his case, is the culmination of work which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has done quietly and unobtrusively in regard to the Members' Fund.
I should like to turn now to the arguments addressed to the House by the hon. Members for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) and Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) and the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey), because they were the three hon. Members who opposed root and branch the proposals of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Committee.
Like the hon. Member for Dover, I am one of those people who are at times part-time. I am, like him, a part-time worker. I have an opportunity, as many of us have, of earning an income independently of the House, but I think the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that, every time we do that, we always have at the back of our minds the fact that, when we are away from this House, there is somebody else who is here doing our job. It is all very well to say that Members ought to be half-time, but Members can only be half-time when other Members are double-time, and, not only that, but they are the Members who are put to extra expense.
If I am pursuing my career at the Bar, I cannot be serving on a Standing Committee upstairs, but there is somebody else-who, perhaps, has to come up from his constituency in order so to do. There is somebody who is not able to have a meal at home, but has to buy a meal out, and, therefore, every one of us who has the advantage of being part-time ought to reflect to himself that he is only doing so at the expense of his fellow Members.
The hon. Member for Dover referred to various professions which could be followed on a half-time basis. I agree. He mentioned journalism. One can be a Member of this House and write a column for a national newspaper, but that is not the same as having representative journalists in the House. The representative journalist is a reporter on a country newspaper or a sub-editor. We have only the specialist sort of journalist. Exactly the same can be said of other professions. We cannot have a representative lawyer in this House. We can have a practising barrister, but we cannot have a country solicitor.

1547
The same is true on the trade union side. Most unions do not allow a national officer to be a Member of this House, but it is possible for that to happen; but if the trade union officer is on a district basis, he cannot be here. He cannot be a shop steward and be here at the same time. The doctor or specialist in this House cannot have the intimate connection that a doctor has with everyday attendance at his surgery or practice, say, in the North of England. If the House is to be representative of the professions on a part-time basis it can be so only in that way. We cannot say that the House is representative simply because we have a few specialist lawyers, a few specialist doctors, and a few specialist trade union officials here.
Three quite different points of view have been expressed in the debate. The first, and the majority view, was expressed by those who are supporting the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Committee in their Report. The second, which was almost solely advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was that some alteration in the remuneration of Members was necessary but could be done in a different way. The third point of view, quite a different one, was expressed by the hon. Member for Dover, the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield and the hon. Member for Aylesbury. It was that the Committee's Report was good but that this was an inopportune time to put it into effect. From those three points of view the House has ultimately to make up its mind.
I think the hon. Member for Aylesbury answered his own speech before he made it, because in an interruption he said that the Members who spent £750 were only those who were not living on their salaries. Does anybody suggest that that is not a necessary and proper expenditure for a Member of Parliament? What the hon. Gentleman was saying in effect was that only hon. Members fortunate enough to have outside sources of income could do their jobs properly.
The hon. Member for Dover answered his own argument as he went along. The strongest argument that he put forward against what he was advocating was what he said in favour of the junior Ministers. I entirely agree with every word he said in regard to them, but if one is to have
1548
Parliamentary democracy, a junior Minister in a Committee must be faced by a Member of the Opposition who is equally well briefed and who has made just as profound a study of the Bill as has the junior Minister in charge. The Member of the Opposition has not the Civil Service behind him, so he has to give his time only in the Committee but in preparing his material. How can we have democracy if we say that a junior Minister must receive a larger sum than at present, while the man who opposes him and has to produce balanced arguments against him can get on well enough on his present salary?
The hon. Member for Dover went on to say that there was a simple way out, and that Members ought to resign if they could not afford to live on their salaries. That is a simple way out for us all, and it is true that none of us is here because he is compelled to be here; there is always somebody to take our place, and we cannot complain in the same way as other people. But I do not think that the hon. Member for Dover saw where his argument was leading. He was saying to the electors, "You shall only elect somebody who can support himself in Parliament out of his private means. Choose him from the Labour Party or from the Conservatives, but you must choose him from a certain social class in society." That really is not a very valid argument.
His other argument was that the position of old-age pensioners should be dealt with before we dealt with Members' salaries, and that the people would not understand our action if we dealt with the one thing before the other. What we are really concerned with is the efficiency of the Parliamentary machine. There cannot be justice for old-age pensioners or anybody else if we so arrange Parliament that it is entirely unrepresentative of the people. The danger of the present position is that the sumptuary test proposed by the hon. Member will come into operation, and Members will resign if they cannot afford to live on their salaries. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who are not contesting the next Election, possibly for those very reasons, and if the process continues we shall ultimately have a House chosen from people who, just because of that element of wealth, may not be the most suitable persons who view these

1549
problems as sympathetically as they should.
In my constituency I made no concealment of the fact that I occasionally do some legal work and make some money outside Parliament. I have had many letters from individual old-age pensioners, and, so far as I can recall, practically every one of those letters has contained a stamped and addressed envelope. The old-age pensioners, at least, appreciate the position of Members of Parliament. It has always struck me that it is the people who are the least well off who appreciate more than anyone else the difficulties and troubles of those who try to represent them.
I want to deal very shortly with the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He began by saying that an argument had been put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield that this was not the time to raise salaries.
Mr. Pannell: My hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that the Chancellor quoted the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield because he was the only Member who had cast a dissentient voice against the proposal of the Select Committee. The Chancellor had no other Member to quote.
Mr. Butler: It was not only for that reason that I quoted my hon. and gallant Friend. It was also because I happen to be well aware of the views of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I do not want to exaggerate or under-rate their arguments, but I pride myself on knowing what they think.
Mr. Bing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to the Chancellor for intervening. The House appreciates the courage of the hon. Member for Dover in expressing an unpopular point of view with a force and vigour which should have been adopted by others who take the same view; it would have given a more rounded view of the opinion of the House if they had done so. But it is a most mistaken argument. I do not suggest that the Chancellor is cowardly. I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Garston (Sir V. Raikes) was right when he said that this was a cowardly type of approach for Parliament to take.
1550
What we are concerned with is getting an efficient Parliamentary machine. A shipping company that is in financial difficulties does not decide that it will not employ any officers in its vessels. We, for our part, want Committees such as the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee to be properly manned. Increasing Parliamentary salaries has not corrupted the Commonwealth. The world situation is the same the world over. We do not assume that the Parliament of Canada is undermined or corrupted because it has doubled a salary that was already in excess of ours of what ours would be even with the proposed addition. I hope the Chancellor will not be over-affected by that argument.
The Chancellor wants to do something, but something different from what the Select Committee proposes. He said first that he did not believe in the pensions scheme proposed by the Select Committee. Of all the most pressing problems of Members, surely the first is that of the Member who is old and has to retire. Nothing can be worse for democracy than that a Member hangs on to his position when he is no longer able to occupy it. Nothing is worse for a political party in a constituency or for the electors in a constituency than to have to say, "We will put up with our Member, although we know he is no longer capable of doing the job, because he has served us well for 20 years and we are not going to let him down now." That is very often what constituencies do say, and it is, from the democratic point of view, entirely wrong, and it is entirely wrong that this House should be so ungenerous to those who have so often contributed to the public weal.
Therefore, the only question with which we are concerned is what is the adequate sum for a pension for a Member who has retired. Surely the sum which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed is generally agreeable as a proper sum for a pension. How can that possibly be got out of any scheme of the Members' Pension Fund? So I hope that even if this proposal is not adopted in exactly the form in which it is proposed, the House will not abandon the idea of a pension for Members. It is entirely wrong that Members should die within the precincts of the House through

1551
dragging themselves to duties which everybody knows they are no longer able to fulfil.
The right hon. Gentleman put forward various plans for expense accounts. I would say most seriously to him that there is a very grave danger that the Executive are taking on themselves to say what are the proper expenses for a Member to incur, to say how he should behave himself. He may employ a secretary or write a letter himself, but he may not incur expense on something else. To some extent the Inland Revenue Department already says this. One cannot, for example, as I found in an interesting case, claim Income Tax relief if one has to buy an Act of Parliament which is already out of date and which one cannot obtain from the Vote Office. I put one down in my expenses account to see what would happen. It was disallowed. Therefore, there are already, from the Inland Revenue point of view, all sorts of things that are absolutely necessary to Parliamentary life for which one is not entitled to charge.
Some Members may feel that their duties are best done if they visit continually their constituencies. That is a charge that the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is proper to allow. Other hon. Members, like myself, may feel rather ill-informed on industrial matters and that they ought to go to look at some factories. Is the expense of that to be an expense that the right hon. Gentleman will not allow? Suppose he himself has to go abroad. He may have an engagement in his constituency, and so he says to a colleague, "Fulfil it for me and spend the week-end speaking in my constituency." Will his colleague be allowed to charge that to his expense account or will the expenses be limited only for those Members who can afford voluntarily to go to their own areas? The Chancellor and I both know the chances of elections in Essex.
This is a larger problem, and we should not look at it in this detailed way. Many political parties live and have their being through propaganda and through discussion, and that is the only way in which democracy can work. Many hon. Members on this side of the House, and I am sure many hon. Members opposite, go to speak in areas which are hopeless from their own electoral point of view,
1552
They may go to start a local political party somewhere. Those are occasions on which an hon. Member cannot say, in claiming expenses, "Four or five people came to see me. That is a very good meeting for a start. We have never had more than two before. My expenses for going to the meeting were £7 18s. 4d." Those are expenses which fall naturally on hon. Members and which cannot be charged against Income Tax, but the political life of this country would be much poorer if hon. Members did not indulge in those activities.
There are some hon. Members, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who are more in demand outside their constituencies than are other hon. Members, and they may very properly, from a general political point of view, undertake a tour of the country. What is said to them? What if they cannot charge, whereas the man who goes and lives in his constituency can clock up £2 a night?
Those are a few examples. The Chancellor was fair to the House, and we all thank him for putting his ideas before us, but we have had only a few moments in which to consider them. The right hon. Gentleman says that London Members have not the same expenses as other Members, but half the expenses of a Member of Parliament are not of the sort which can be put down for Income Tax purposes, nor are they susceptible or understandable to the people in the world at large.
There are some hon. Members, for example, who occasionally make very long speeches and keep the House sitting late hours. One never knows, but on some such occasion there may be a Division and the result could be fatal to the position of the Government. Are the Government to fall or not according to how many Members can afford the taxi fare home? I live within a reasonable distance and it costs me about 4s. by taxi to go home. In a case of that sort, does one go to the Fees Office and say, "I was staying to speak on something or other and had to take a taxi home"? Or will that expense not be allowed?
This whole business of turning the Fees Office into a kind of arbiter of the conduct of Members of Parliament in the fulfilment of their duties is not only unworkable but is most undignified.
Mr. Mellish: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that if the Fees Office are responsible for the payment of hotel expenses, they could be called in divorce proceedings?
Mr. Bing: This has been a useful debate, because if there is any question misunderstood in the country, or which appears to be misunderstood, it is the question of Members' expense allowances. We must remember that whatever we do will result in a change. If we decide to do nothing, then we decide to alter the composition of Parliament. if we decide to do nothing, a great many hon. Members on both sides of the House will find it impossible to continue in Parliament. We shall have altered, perhaps for good, the whole conception of the nature of the British Parliament.
The British Parliament originally—and this is perhaps the reason for the difference between the rates of salaries paid in the Dominion Parliaments and the British Parliament—was a club. The Dominion Parliaments were always places where people worked seriously at the job of governing the country. For that reason they approached things from a different basis.
If we now decide not to make a change, we shall change the whole nature of Parliament in this country. It will not be possible to get people to come forward, and we may have a situation in which the trade unions will feel more obliged to provide support for their Members—and I do not think that is a good thing.
We shall have a situation in which everyone who comes into the House will have to decide whether he will have to accept some other job which is only offered to him because he is a Member of Parliament. It is all very well for Members to discuss the possibility of altering Parliamentary procedure, but the pressure on Members does not come only from Parliamentary procedure, it comes because they have resting on their shoulders far greater responsibility than ever rested on the shoulders of Members of Parliament before. If this House is to carry out its duties it can do so only if Members have at least the money to write to their constituents, at least the stamp with which to reply to a letter from somebody who is not a constituent, and at least the opportunity of seeing the country which they represent.
9.36 p.m.
Sir Wavell Wakefield: The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has been somewhat critical of the situation put forward by the Chancellor, as, indeed, was the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) earlier on. The right hon. Member told us that he had written down certain observations at the time the Chancellor was making his suggestions, and the words he put down were certainly rather harsh. At the time that the right hon. Member for Ipswich was writing down his words, I was writing down mine. I wrote as follows: "Logical, sensible, something that the public can understand."
May I take the last first—something the public can understand. I think that is a point in which I am in agreement with the right hon. Member for Ipswich and the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch, because I do not think that the public really understand how Members of Parliament are remunerated. I know that at the time when the Report on Members' remuneration and expenses was published there were leading articles in the newspapers and people writing to the "Financial Times" or the "Sunday Times," and the impression I got, many of my constituents got and the general public got was that a Member of Parliament took £1,000 a year remuneration or salary.
There was no idea that from that salary a large amount of expenses fell to be deducted. It is not understood generally in the country that one-quarter of the Members of Parliament do not receive any net salary at all because their expenditure is in excess of their net salary, as the Select Committee has shown. Indeed, the statistical results of the investigation carried out by the Committee showed that the net salary received by a Member of Parliament was in the order of £250 a year and not £1,000. I think that that is the first really important piece of education which should be given to the public.
I believe that the Chancellor, in putting forward his suggestions, has made a most important departure in principle from what has happened before. Always before a Member of Parliament has been considered in terms of whether he has an allowance, a fee or a salary of so

1555
much, and expenses must be taken out of that fee, salary or allowance.
The suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if I understand it aright, is that Members should in future be paid a salary or remuneration for the work they do, whatever that may be. Obviously, there are differences of opinion as to the kind of salary that ought to be paid to a Member of Parliament for the duties that he fulfils. But, over and above that, my right hon. Friend has suggested that there should be a reimbursement of expenses.
I cannot understand why that should not be regarded as a sensible, logical suggestion. It is what already happens to millions of our fellow citizens. A man in a factory makes something and then is required to assemble it in another part of the country. In addition to his rates of pay, he is reimbursed his travelling expenses to the places where he has to put the job together and he gets a form of allowance, either subsistence allowance or reimbursement; the allowances vary in different ways. It is the same in the Civil Service and in the Fighting Forces. It is the same throughout industry and, generally speaking, that is the sort of principle that is adopted throughout the country—payment for a job of work, reimbursement of expenses. For many years I have wondered why Members of Parliament should be treated differently and not receive remuneration and reimbursement for expenses on the same basis as everybody else.
The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch drew attention to some of the difficulties that would be created if the suggestions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were put into effect. The hon. and learned Member said that they were unworkable and undignified. But the kind of details and facts which he put forward in argument are happening in their tens of thousands every day with inspectors of taxes by people who claim expenses. The expenses may have been permitted by the firms employing those who claim them, but either the firms or the individuals themselves must justify them to the inspectors of taxes as being expenses properly incurred in the discharge of their duties.
Mr. Houghton: We are doing exactly the same. There is no difference between
1556
what we are doing for the Inland Revenue and what everybody else is doing. That is no comparison.
Sir W. Wakefield: Precisely. The hon. Member says that we are doing the same. I do not understand, therefore, why the point should be made from the benches opposite that my right hon. Friend's proposals are unworkable and undignified.
Mr. Bing: Suppose that the hon. Member is on, say, the national executive of an association such as the United Nations Union, or something of that sort. If there is a meeting of that body, would the hon. Member feel that it was a proper expense that ought to be paid by him as a Member of Parliament? Is that the sort of thing for which he should draw reimbursement from the Fees Office?
Mr. Scholefield Allen: Suppose that the hon. Member happens to be a recorder who is interested in prisons and visits a prison in the north of England or in Scotland. Does the hon. Member suggest that he would be entitled to be given his railway fare and hotel expenses?
Sir W. Wakefield: Those are all the kind of matters which would have to be discussed and for which, no doubt, precedents would be established. Obviously, some of the suggestions to be put forward would be try-ons and would not be allowed, but no doubt others, by discussion and agreement—there is machinery for the purpose—would become recognised and allowed. At present there are certain allowable expenses which we claim, secretarial, postage, travelling within a constituency, and so on. I do not see why the kind of reimbursement suggested by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is what we are doing now, is either unworkable or undignified.
I do not think that the Select Committee's proposal to increase a Member's salary to £1,500 can be considered to be satisfactory. The proposal of my right hon. Friend is more satisfactory, because expenses in a constituency vary from year to year. That being so, why should the net salary of a Member of Parliament vary from year to year? The expenses of individual constituencies vary enormously. One of my hon. Friends earlier

1557
spoke of incurring something like £600 in travelling around a large agricultural constituency. In travelling within my compact constituency of St. Marylebone, I incur perhaps only a quarter of that expenditure.
I fail to see why, because various Members have different requirements in their constituents and different duties to discharge, if the costs to one Member in discharging certain duties are five or six times greater than to another Member, they should all come off the same net salary.
Mr. William Shepherd: Is it suggested that expenses of Members, irrespective of the amount, shall be allowed by the Inland Revenue? If an hon. Member stays at the Savoy Hotel, for instance, and incurs expenses of £3,000 a year, would the hon. Member agree that those expenses should be allowed?
Sir W. Wakefield: That has not been suggested at all. There must be limits to the reimbursement of expenses. If a Member of Parliament travels within his constituency, there will be a certain mileage which is agreed and he will be reimbursed on that basis.
Mr. Jack Jones: The hon. Member has been extremely fair in giving way, and we appreciate it. What happens in the case of this description? Certain hon. Members will be travelling to the North tonight and their sleeper accommodation will be paid for by the taxpayer. I can go to my flat tonight and stay there for some time, catching the 1.20 train to the North. Is it the suggestion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the taxpayer should pay for my sleeper and my train fare plus the two guineas expenses for being in London the same night? That is the sort of exploitation which could take place.
Sir W. Wakefield: The hon. Gentleman says that is the sort of exploitation which takes place.
Mr. Jones: I said "could take place."
Sir W. Wakefield: I agree, but certain adjustments will have to be made. What I am suggesting is that any inequalities of the proposed system are smaller than the inequalities existing at the present time. I think the suggestion made by
1558
my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an excellent one. Expenses will be allowed to enable a Member of Parliament to carry out his duties in his constituency, and while there will be reimbursements of expenses of that kind, there must be certain limits and standards laid down which are not necessary at the moment because the maximum a Member of Parliament can claim now is the extent of his salary of £1,000 a year. I commend to the House the suggestion thrown out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as something worthy of consideration when the whole of this matter comes under review.
I should like to conclude by saying that the Committee has made out a case for something to be done to improve the position of Members of Parliament. That is admitted on all sides of the House, and I do not want to weary the House by repeating arguments in that connection. All I want to add is that if agreement is reached for something to be done, whether on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend or in some other way, then the decision should be made in this Parliament but should not be brought into effect until the next Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] There will then be no question of electioneering or of a General Election, but it will be known that this step has been taken in this Parliament and the Members who are elected to the next Parliament will know the exact conditions under which they enter Parliament.
Mr. Lewis: We all know that the hon. Member is one of the finest employers in engineering in the country and that he deals handsomely with the trade unions. Is he suggesting that if his trade union employees present a case to him for increased wages which he accepts that he would say to them, "I agree with everything you say, but I cannot bring it into operation until some time in the future because it will be more opportune then"?
Sir W. Wakefield: The point put forward by the hon. Member is not comparable with the position of Members of Parliament. We were elected to the House on certain terms and conditions. When we were returned here we all knew the terms and conditions of our election and the electorate knew them. Therefore, for the reasons so ably given by

1559
speakers on both sides of the House, I think that we should implement this suggestion in the next Parliament.
I agree with other speakers that Under-Secretaries should be dealt with generously immediately—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and that they should receive in addition to their Parliamentary salary and expenses a salary for their Ministerial duties.
9.51 p.m.
Mr. J. McGovern (Glasgow, Shettleston): I have listened to most of this debate and have been glad to hear the general agreement that something must be done in relation to the expenses and salaries of Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) began by saying that his constituents did not understand how the remuneration of Members was allocated, but I am sure they will have greater difficulty in following the explanation of the hon. Gentleman of how expenses can be determined under the allowance proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
If anything has come out of this debate, it is that there should be a straight increase in salary of £500, because any subterfuge that is attempted means that we shall be creating more inequalities and injustices than would occur by a straight increase. We have been told time and again that a straight increase of £500 would go to people who did not require it. But surely the Chancellor would give with the one hand and take back with the other, because tax would be deducted in the ordinary way, and the right hon. Gentleman would get at least half of what was allocated to hon. Members from those who did not require it.
I came to this House 24 years ago and I have not run around urging increases in salary because, during the earlier part of my life, I lived on a modest income. When I was in the I.L.P. group, we lived on a very small wage. I remember some of my experiences in looking for a cheap room. Once I had a room in Westminster behind the Abbey. I remember waking up one morning at 6.30. There was a faulty gas tap in the room and I was almost gassed, but I managed to get to the window and fling it up.
Then I went to another part of London in search of a cheap room, because
1560
I had to maintain a growing family in Glasgow. This one was in a small hotel. I awakened at 3 o'clock in the morning and found that the bed in which I was sleeping was full of bugs. I had to get up and strip myself. I rang the bell but could not get any response, so I left a note in the room with eight dead bugs on top of it, left the hotel in the night, and went in search of another in which to sleep.
So I think that a Member of Parliament living away from home is entitled to a good, comfortable room in an hotel. Later on, I went to one which could not be called a classy hotel, although I would put it down as one of the best in London. It was the Cumberland. Before the war bed and breakfast there cost 9s. 6d.; today it costs 35s. If I stay there for three nights now, and have wireless in my room and incur various expenses, tips and so forth, I cannot spend less than £6. Then I have my food to find and the ordinary expenses of transport, and so forth.
I do not smoke or drink, and as a result my requirements are very modest, but it costs me £10 per week when the House is sitting. After my expenses have been paid, and I allocate some money to the divisional party, I have about £6 15s. or £7 to give to my wife, and that also has to help to keep me in out-of-pocket expenses at home, in going to the pictures and so on.
Surely, it is not intended that Members of Parliament should have to come to the House as if to an evangelical meeting to give testimony in order to convince the Government that there is a case for them. I had other resources for a time, though I have not got them now, and I am having to nibble slowly at the money that I put away. It is taking more than my modest income to keep me at present, and many other hon. Members are in the same position.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not put forward any proposals but analysed various proposals that could be made. One related to a £2 allowance. I visited Australia 18 months ago and I lived for a week in Canberra. To understand the Australian system in the Federal Parliament one has to understand the way in which the town of Canberra is constructed. There is no real living accommodation in Canberra and therefore some of the Members of

1561
the Senate and of the Federal Parliament, embracing all the six states, live in hotels or in Government hostels or bungalows and pay 9s. 6d. a night for bed and breakfast. A Member of the Federal Parliament receives £1,750 a year and in addition has £400 to £900 a year, according to the size of the division, to maintain his division. On top of that, he has £2 10s. every day that Parliament sits to pay for his 9s. 6d. bed and breakfast and to feed himself during the day. Those are the arrangements in a small part of the world which has only a few million population.
Here in this Parliament we spend £1,750 million a year on rearmament in order, if necessary, to maintain British democracy. We think that it is a great thing and ought to be defended. I agree with that, but part of the defence of democracy is to see that those who are Members of a democratic House have the opportunity to live in a decent manner and to do the job with which Parliament entrusts them. I urge the Chancellor, therefore, to consider this as an issue of a straight increase of £500.
I repeat the view that I have taken all along that there should have been a contributory pensions scheme with each Member paying £5 a month. I believe that a grand case has been made out for a scheme. I have never been afraid in this House or on the platforms in the country to defend any claims that I would make myself. I do not believe that it is my duty to come here to defend every civil servant, every judge and every person in the country who wants an increase in pay and then to be ashamed to press my own claim when the time arrives.
Unfortunately, we have to decide. It would have been better if an outside body had been asked to decide, but since the duty devolves upon us we should take our courage in our hands and decide this issue. The British public are more generous than some small-minded people in this country believe. Those who criticise and attack are the type of people who are always out to attack every section of the community who receive increases, and there has been envy and jealousy. I appeal to the Chancellor to support this plea.
It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BY-PASS ROAD, CARDIFF
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry].
10.0 p.m.
Mr. George Thomas: I hope to bring the attention of the House to what appears at first sight to be a local problem. It certainly is a South Wales problem. In the nine years that it has been my privilege to represent part of the City of Cardiff in this House, it has not been often that I have sought through the Adjournment to raise specific constituency matters. But both my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn), I know, were equally desirous in seeking the Adjournment on the question of a by-pass road for the City of Cardiff.
The City of Cardiff is a beautiful city; it is a progressive city. It has much to be said in its favour. Unfortunately, it is not governed by a Labour majority, unless the votes being counted at the moment prove to be sufficiently enlightened. Even so, it is a progressive city of which all of us who live within its boundaries are indeed proud. The City of Cardiff is concerned about its traffic problems and the corporation, through its town clerk, has approached the three Cardiff Members of Parliament and sought our support in connection with the beginning of the eastern by-pass for the city. The city serves as a venue for the people of the valleys of South Wales. It is very often the scene of great international football matches. It is the scene of great demonstrations of all sorts and on Thursdays and Saturdays the city is especially crowded when our friends and relatives come in from the valleys.
I am a valley boy and I know how the people of the valleys look on a trip to Cardiff as a special day out. But it is 'becoming intolerable to be in the city when it is crowded. One can almost walk across the tops of the motor cars to reach the other side of the road. I do not want to be guilty of exaggeration, but I do know that the problem is getting similar to the problem in London. When there are great events in London, we know how traffic congestion in one

1563
part affects several other parts, and in Cardiff we frequently find that state of affairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North will testify to that.
The problem has become one of the major problems for the city and the watch committee has not been unmindful of it. The chief constable advised the corporation that we ought to develop a one-way system of traffic which would mean a great loss to our shops in various parts of the city. After a tremendous campaign, the one-way system for Queen Street was withdrawn. Every responsible person is now agreed that we need the eastern by-pass, which would relieve the city of the heavy industrial traffic from London, the Midlands and the Bristol area, moving to West Wales.
There has been an astonishing increase in traffic flowing through the main streets of Cardiff since 1945. The increase from 1945 to 1951 was no less than 50 per cent, of the traffic passing through Queen Street, Duke Street, Castle Street and on to Cowbridge Road. The traffic which is pouring through the streets of Cardiff means that there is a general slowing down in the activities of our area. Before the war we established the Western Avenue which has been a godsend in relieving the city centre. This proposed eastern by-pass will extend from the Western Avenue to the North Road Junction for five and a half miles in an easterly direction joining the main London—Newport Road at St. Mellons. It would be a blessing to Cardiff.
Like the roads in other cities of this country, our roads in Cardiff were not constructed for the heavy industrial traffic which they have to carry today. Cardiff is not an ancient city. We have ancient monuments but the city is, roughly, only 100 years old. Our leases are now beginning to run out, but that is a matter of industrial development, and I do not wish to get involved in that provocative subject tonight. Although Cardiff is not an ancient city, the roads are not wide enough for the heavy burden imposed upon them at present. We have, I think, a right to ask the Ministry of Transport to help us to face this problem. I know that the cost of the new road would be borne by the Ministry.
1564
Cowbridge Road which runs through the heart of Cardiff West, and runs through my constituency, was last year the scene of fatal accident after fatal accident. I myself visited three homes where children had been killed within a short period of time. It is a death-trap for the people who live there. The suggested arterial road would be a means not only of easing the temper of motorists and easing the problem of transport, but it would also be a means of saving life within the city.
I hope that the Minister will not say, "Yes, we all agree with you, but we have not the money." This is one of those projects for which we must find the money and where it is too important to wait. I hope that if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East will support this request which comes from the city fathers.
10.9 p.m.
Mr. James Callaghan: I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) on his zeal and initiative. Only he and I know how far he has travelled today.
Mr. G. Thomas: I cast my vote.
Mr. Callaghan: I will not go into details of his journey, but he has travelled hundreds of miles to be here this evening to put the case for a road which would run through his constituency and which affects us all in Cardiff.
I wish to support the case made originally by the council to the Lloyd Committee. I know from my personal knowledge that conditions, are becoming quite intolerable in the city centre. Whatever plans the Ministry may have for relieving traffic on either side of the city, they will be of little avail if all the traffic passing through the city is so slowed down that time is lost which has otherwise been gained. All of us who know the city and who have been there on week-days, and indeed at week-ends, know that this is a most serious problem.
I know as well as anybody does the difficulties of the Ministry of Transport in this matter but I tell the Minister that there is a real case to be met here, and I hope that he will give us some indication of the degree of urgency that he

1565
attaches to the scheme and when he hopes it will be undertaken. Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend upon his initiative in securing this Adjournment debate.
10.11 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary-Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I know that the traffic problems of Cardiff have been worrying all three hon. Members who represent that city. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) who asked us a question about the matter only a short time ago. However, I recognise that there is no difference of opinion at all between the parties as to the importance of something being done to relieve the traffic congestion in Cardiff.
We are most anxious as soon as possible to begin work upon the Eastern Avenue. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has said, Western Avenue has already been completed, and it is already serving a useful purpose. Obviously the value of what has already been done would be very much increased if it were possible to complete the road which would provide a by-pass around the busy, important and beautiful city of Cardiff, so that the heavy industrial traffic between the industrial towns of the South of Wales could by-pass it.
My Department has been in close touch with the city council and has been employing the surveyors of the city council as its agents to carry out the necessary preliminary survey for this work. It is my right hon. Friend's intention, as soon as the details have been carried far enough, to proceed with the making of a trunk road order.
That is a straightforward answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) as to whether or not the Minister recognises the importance of the scheme. We are prepared to undertake it as soon as funds permit. Because it is so largely concerned with the heavy industrial traffic of South Wales, and, indeed, of the country as a whole, and not primarily that of the inhabitants and ratepayers of Cardiff, we are prepared to go a long way in making this road, Western Avenue and also that part of the Cowbridge Road to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West referred, a trunk road. It is difficult
1566
to describe, but I refer to the part of Cowbridge Road to which the hon. Member referred. The whole of the cost of building the new road and the cost of maintenance of the existing part will be borne by the Exchequer.
I hope, therefore, that the two hon. Gentlemen opposite and also my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North will regard that as being, as far as it goes, a satisfactory answer, and will realise that we recognise the importance of the matter and that in due course it will be undertaken, and undertaken at the cost of the Exchequer.
Mr. Callaghan: That is a beginning.
Mr. Molson: Yes, it is a beginning.
The hon. Gentleman no doubt realises that I am now coming to the question of the time-table, and that is where I fear I may not be able entirely to satisfy the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. On a number of occasions, we have been asked in this House to make certain that the Principality of Wales obtains fair treatment, and that case has been put by the right hon. Gentleman the Father of the House and by hon. Gentlemen representing Welsh constituencies who sit on both sides. The Government have recognised both the strength and the justification for this nationalist sentiment, and it was as a result of that that the Lloyd Committee—
Mr. Callaghan: Would the hon. Gentleman substitute the word "national "for "nationalist?"
Mr. Molson: I really do not want to split hairs, and I think that perhaps the word I used is, on the whole, more appropriate in the circumstances.
Mr. Callaghan: No.
Mr. Molson: The Lloyd Committee went into the whole question of what could and should be done in order to help the Principality of Wales. We have always recognised since before the war that, owing to causes for which Wales was in no way responsible, it has suffered from particular misfortunes. The great industrial development which took place there was succeeded by a period of depression, and, for that reason, it appeared to be justifiable to treat Wales, and especially South Wales, in a special way in order to try to reduce the amount

1567
of unemployment that exists at the present time, and certainly to prevent the recurrence of the very heavy unemployment which existed there between the wars.
It was for that reason that the Government considered that they were justified in undertaking the very large road developments in Wales and in the adjoining part of England which was announced by my right hon. Friend on 8th December last. Hon. Gentlemen representing Welsh constituencies will be aware that there are some colleagues of mine representing English constituencies who thought that there had been discrimination in favour of Wales. If that were so, I think it could be justified for the reasons I have given—because of the vital need of trying to encourage new industries to establish themselves in those parts of South Wales where the mining industry, in particular, the tinplate industry and others of the early and pioneering industries of the whole country, upon which our prosperity had depended in the past, are now in a state of decline. It was for that reason that the very large programme was approved by the Government.
Let me begin by dealing with a road scheme in the immediate vicinity of Cardiff. The Whitchurch by-pass was recently approved, and will be included in the first three years programme, and will cost £250,000. It is not actually within the city boundaries of Cardiff, but in that developed area, and it will confer very great benefit on the city of Cardiff. Then, there is the Neath—Llanelly road, already approved at a cost of nearly £1 million. There is the Swansea Eastern Approach, to which the Government grant will amount to well over £250,000. There is the Neath by-pass, Part II, which will cost £1.6 million, and there is the Port Talbot by-pass, to cost £2 million. These schemes amount to almost £4 million of Exchequer money.
In addition to that is the route along the heads of the valleys. The hon. Gentleman described himself as "a son of the valleys." He will realise how important it is for people living in the northern and uppermost parts of the valleys that there should be road com
1568
munication to make industrial development reasonably possible. The cost of the improvements of the Hirwain—Abergavenny route will be approximately £4 million. It is proposed to construct part of the Newport by-pass at a cost of £1½ million, in order to enable traffic from the South Wales ports to get on to road A449 to Raglan, which it is thought will be of considerable benefit to the whole of that part of Wales.
Then there is the Ross Spur and by-pass, providing a new route on that industrial area of South Wales to the great industrial area around Birmingham, which will cost a very large sum in the neighbourhood of £5½ million. Although part of it may be outside the Principality, it is being undertaken in the interests not solely of that part of England but in the interests of industrial South Wales. It is therefore incontrovertibly the case that in the new programme that was announced very large works are being undertaken for the benefit of Wales in general and of South Wales in particular.
We are subject to pressure, but I think reasonable pressure, from the representatives of many industrial areas in England who are asking that urgent and long overdue work of road development should be carried out. I hope that with that spirit of reasonableness and moderation which always distinguishes the hon. Member for Cardiff, West he will recognise that in this first announced programme of road construction we are doing a great deal for South Wales. We have done a great deal for Cardiff. With the assurance that we fully recognise the importance of this by-pass, I hope that the hon. Member will not press us to undertake it out of the general order of priority.
Mr. G. Thomas: I hope that the Minister will understand that neither my hon. Friend nor myself committed ourselves to the exact route suggested for these roads. We are very appreciative of the manner in which the Minister has given his reply.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes past Ten o'Clock.

NATIONAL SERVICE
  Conscientious Objectors
  Conscientious Objectors
  Coalminers
  Coalminers
  WAGES (TIME RATES)
  WAGES (TIME RATES)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Tuberculosis Treatment, South Wales
  Tuberculosis Treatment, South Wales
  Cheap Milk
  Cheap Milk
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Sanitary Inspectors (Recruitment)
  Sanitary Inspectors (Recruitment)
  Inoculations (Litigation)
  Inoculations (Litigation)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Resale Price Maintenance
  Resale Price Maintenance
  Grain Imports
  Grain Imports
AGRICULTURE
  Land Drainage Report (Consultations)
  Land Drainage Report (Consultations)
  Hedgerows and Trees (Soil Erosion)
  Hedgerows and Trees (Soil Erosion)
  Agricultural Co-operation (Report)
  Agricultural Co-operation (Report)
  Fatstock Marketing Scheme
  Fatstock Marketing Scheme
  Sheep (Guaranteed Payments)
  Sheep (Guaranteed Payments)
  Wood Pigeons (Destruction)
  Wood Pigeons (Destruction)
  Milk Production (Efficiency)
  Milk Production (Efficiency)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Jury Service (Loss of Earnings)
  Jury Service (Loss of Earnings)
  Obscene Books
  Obscene Books
  Poisons List (Calomel)
  Poisons List (Calomel)
  TELEVISION SETS (SERVICING)
  TELEVISION SETS (SERVICING)
  CRANWELL COLLEGE (ENTRANTS)
  CRANWELL COLLEGE (ENTRANTS)
EDUCATION
  Special Schools (Admissions)
  Special Schools (Admissions)
  School Building
  School Building
  CREMATORIA SCHEMES
  CREMATORIA SCHEMES
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Wheat and Rye (Deficiency Payments)
  Wheat and Rye (Deficiency Payments)
  Bulk Purchase and Long-term Agreements
  Bulk Purchase and Long-term Agreements
  OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY)
  OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY)
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  HER MAJESTY'S RETURN
  4.5 p.m.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, before we proceed to the Business on the Order Paper, there are two matters which I have been asked to bring to your Lordships' attention. The first is to inform the House that the hour of the Royal Commission this evening has been postponed from 6 o'clock to 6.30.
  The second is to inform those of your Lordships who have given notice that they intend to witness the arrival of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh from the enclosure on the Embankment that the police authorities advise that cars should approach via Millbank and park in Old Palace Yard. Windscreen labels are not being issued. I am also asked to say that the Refreshment Department of this House will not be open for lunch.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That Standing Orders No. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Telegraph Bill and the Niall Macpherson Indemnity Bill over the other Orders of the Day, and for passing the Bills through their remaining stages.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  TELEGRAPH BILL
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

  NIALL MACPHERSON INDEMNITY BILL
  4.7 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, the Bill that I have the pleasure of submitting for your Lordships' consideration will not, I hope, occupy much of your Lordships' time. It is a Bill which, as the Long Title states, is
  "To indemnify Niall Macpherson, Esquire, from any penal consequences which he may have incurred by sitting or voting as a member of the House of Commons while holding the office of member of the London agency of the Dried Fruits Control Board of the Commonwealth of Australia, and to remove any disqualification for membership of that House by reason of his having held that office."
  The Dried Fruits Control Board of the Commonwealth of Australia is a statutory body set up under divers Acts of the Australian Parliament. It has a London agency, of which one member, at least, is appointed by the Governor General and others by the Board, and they are paid out of the consolidated revenues of Australia. It has therefore been apprehended, and Mr. Macpherson has been so advised, that he holds an office of profit under the Crown, and has accordingly brought himself within the scope of Sections 24 and 28 of the Succession to the Throne Act, 1707.
  As your Lordships well know, following upon that Act, there have been a great number of Acts of Parliament—I am told that they number between 125 and 150—dealing with matters which disqualify persons from being Members of Parliament. Mr. Macpherson has, as I say, been advised that, holding that office, he has brought himself within the scope of the Act and the heavy penalties to which he is liable under Section 28. Accordingly, in accordance with what has been the practice of Parliament where an offence has been committed unwittingly, it has been thought proper to bring in a Bill of Indemnity. That is what this Bill is. I think it is common knowledge how difficult it is for any man to find his way amongst the numerous Acts which deal with this matter so as to be quite sure that he is not holding an office of profit within the meaning of the Act.

  595
  It is not right, inasmuch as Mr. Macpherson is open to attack by the common informer, whose rights still remain (if they can be called rights) in regard to this matter, though they have been generally abolished, that he should remain liable to any penalty. Mr. Macpherson was elected as Member for Dumfries, and it is right to say that as soon as this matter was brought to his notice he at once sought advice and protection. While it is not strictly relevant, it is the fact that, although the office does provide for remuneration, he, in fact, has not drawn any. I submit the Bill for your Lordships' favourable consideration, and beg to move that it be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  4.12 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may I say on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House that we certainly give this Bill our support. Members of another place are in an exceedingly difficult position. No one who has held the office of Attorney-General can fail to know that Members come and ask about all sorts of offices—whether they are or are not safe to accept them. I will give one illustration. I remember the late Lord Simon, then Sir John Simon, consenting at my request many years ago to preside over the investigations into the loss of the R.101. He stipulated from the beginning that he should receive no remuneration for so doing. Then doubts were raised as to whether that was not an office of profit under the Crown. The mere fact that a Member receives no profit does not answer the question. If the office is normally one which carries remuneration, it matters not that he has not received the remuneration. Lord Simon was greatly disturbed about this. I was not myself, because I thought it was not an office at all, but he was by no means sure that that was right, and made me promise to get the Prime Minister's consent to bring in a Bill of indemnity in case any trouble was raised. In fact, no trouble was raised.
  596
  At some stage I myself tried my hand at drafting a Bill, and I think the late Sir Granville Ram prepared something which I hoped was going to find favour. I suggest to the Lord Chancellor that it would be desirable to see if something could be done, because I know that at the present time Members of another place are in a great difficulty about this matter. It may be quite impossible to avoid it. My efforts were not successful, but perhaps the Lord Chancellor may have better luck. I am quite sure that the Parliamentary situation being as it is in modern conditions, whenever we get a case such as this, where a man has honestly and genuinely made a mistake, we shall always be ready to extend to him protection in this way. I would point out to your Lordships that, if I understand it aright, this Bill does not authorise the continuance of his holding the office; it merely exempts him from the penal sections which would otherwise have resulted from his having held the office from which he has now resigned. In those circumstances, I wish the Bill a speedy passage in order that we may give the honourable Member the protection which we should all desire to give him.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I add one word? I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and his colleagues for their approach to the Bill. The noble and learned Earl is quite right in what he says concerning this matter. A great deal of work has been done for which, I may say, we are grateful, because we have been attempting ourselves to solve this question and we have obtained great advantage from the work done by the noble and learned Earl and his colleagues. I cannot say more than that we are at work upon it, except to add that the more we work upon it the greater the difficulties seem to be. It is a difficult and complex matter.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

  AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  4.16 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD) CARRINGTON): My Lords, the main reason for this not very exciting Bill is the fact that the present legislative authority for the grants for field drainage and water supply in England and Wales, and for the agricultural lime subsidy in the United Kingdom, expire next summer, and, therefore, legislation this Session is needed if these grants are not to come to an abrupt end. Certain other clauses of the Bill—Clauses 8, 9 and 12—have been prepared in accordance with the Government's policy as explained by the Home Secretary in a recent debate in another place on the extension of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, when he said that it was one of our objects to pick out the remaining powers under emergency legislation which it seemed necessary to retain permanently, and, in suitable cases, to prepare legislation. I think it will be convenient if, without more ado, I now go through the Bill clause by clause.
  Clause 1 extends the present powers to make grants towards the cost of approved schemes of field drainage—ditching, tile and mole drainage—and farm water supply carried out by owners and occupiers of agricultural land. The grants were introduced in 1940 as part of the war-time food production campaign, under powers which have been renewed from time to time but expire next August. The rates of grant for these works are normally 50 per cent. on ditching and field drainage, 40 per cent. on schemes to supply water from a private source, and 25 per cent. when the source is a public main. The need for this work is still great, as is shown by the number of schemes which are now coming forward every year. There are about 24,000 schemes for field drainage and 6,000 to 7,000 for water supply. The need for help from the Exchequer also continues, because these schemes are relatively costly. They give the owner or occupier only a long-term return on
  598
  expenditure, yet it is essential that we should get the early benefit to food production which works of this kind confer. Better field drainage is often the essential first step in improving a piece of land. Farm water supply schemes, on the other hand, raise crop yields and milk production and cut down unproductive and unpleasant manual work, besides giving farmers, farm workers and their women-folk a long-wished-for amenity.
  Clause 2 also extends existing powers to make other grants which are of great value to food production; that is to say, contributions towards the cost of applying lime. These powers, too, would expire next August. The provisions of the clause extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. It straight away prolongs the powers of the Secretaries of State and my right honourable friend until 1959, and also for five-year extensions afterwards, if Orders subject to Affirmative Resolution are submitted to and approved by Parliament. A lime subsidy scheme was introduced by the Agriculture Act, 1937, and has operated ever since, without major change, by payments made direct to farmers. It has undoubtedly proved one of the most successful means of aiding production and farming efficiency. Since its introduction, the use of lime in the United Kingdom has risen from about 500,000 tons in 1936 to 6 million tons in 1953. This revival in the good practice of liming must continue, or we shall lose what we have already gained in improved soil fertility. Lime deficiency still exists, and we should like to see lime being applied at the rate of 7 million tons a year.
  Clause 3 clears up two small difficulties that have arisen in the administration of the grants made by the Department to county councils for smallholdings which they provide under Part IV of the Agriculture Act, 1947. I would emphasise that these amendments do not imply any change whatever in smallholdings policy but are designed only to help its application. The first two subsections are designed to regularise the provision of holdings of over fifty acres in area as smallholdings. A smallholding is essentially one which the occupier and his family can work themselves without any regular hired labour, and I know your Lordships will agree that holdings of over

  599
  fifty acres ought to be the exception rather than the rule. But it is necessary to go above this limit sometimes. The reason may be that the holding is on relatively poor land, as in parts of Wales, and therefore rather more than fifty acres is needed to provide a full-time occupation and a reasonable livelihood for the occupier. Again, in dividing up an estate into smallholdings, to stick rigidly to the fifty acre limit might often leave over odd parcels of land not big enough to form a holding in themselves, and on grounds of good estate management the sensible thing is clearly to throw them in with the adjacent holdings, even if it does bring these over the fifty acre limit.
  Previous attempts to define these holdings of more than fifty acres in terms of limiting rental or net annual value have led to difficulties and the need for special noting in the Ministry's Appropriation Accounts of grants for any smallholdings which fell outside the statutory definition. We hope that the provisions of subsection (2), which have been prepared after consultation with our Smallholdings Advisory Council, will get over these difficulties for the future. Subsection (3) provides that the smallholdings authority will not be penalised if the rate of interest at which they can borrow money to defray the capital cost of providing a smallholding goes up in the interval between the approval of their estimates by the Ministry and the actual borrowing. Conversely, we ensure that the Exchequer gets the due benefit if there is a fall in the rate of interest.
  The next three clauses, Clauses 4 to 6, introduce amendments into the constitution and proceedings of the agricultural land tribunals set up by the Agriculture Act, 1947. Your Lordships will be familiar with the working of these bodies. Their main task is to hear and decide finally, on the basis of the facts, cases in which decisions and proposals of my right honourable friend (or of county agricultural executive committees acting under powers which he has delegated to them) under the Act, and also under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, are referred to them at the request of one of the parties concerned. The best known of these references are concerned with notices to quit given by landlords to their tenants, and proposals to dispossess occupiers or owners for failing to observe
  600
  the rules of good husbandry or of good estate management.
  These references are often called "appeals," but what the tribunal really has to do is to hear the whole case again and reach an independent decision. Sometimes they take the same view as my right honourable friend or the county agricultural executive committee, and sometimes they do not, but I believe it is generally agreed that they have done their work admirably and impartially. Both the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union, as the national bodies representing both owners and occupiers of agricultural land, have expressed to my right honourable friend their confidence in the tribunals and the way in which they do their work.
  Clauses 4 to 6 of the Bill make three improvements in the constitution and powers of the tribunals. These changes raise no controversial issues, but have been urged on us from a number of well-informed sources as the result of experience we have had over the past six years. Their object is, first, to make the independence of the tribunals abundantly clear, by providing that in future members of a tribunal shall be appointed by the chairman instead of by the Minister of Agriculture; secondly, to enable them to award costs where necessary to check vexatious references, as for example when a landlord tries to harry a tenant by taking him before the tribunal year by year on a notice to quit; thirdly, to enable any aggrieved person to have, as of right, access to the High Courts on questions of law, by way of reference from the tribunal.
  I think your Lordships will probably prefer me to deal with the remaining clauses of the Bill fairly shortly, though, of course, if any noble Lords have any particular questions on these clauses, I shall be glad to deal with them either in replying to this debate or in the later stages of the Bill. Clause 7 raises the upper limit to the contributions by growers and the British Sugar Corporation for the programme of sugar beet research and education which, under the provisions of the Sugar Industry Reorganisation Act, 1936, and the Sugar Industry Act, 1942, has since 1942 been carried out under the ægis of the Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee. With rising costs and increases in the programme of the work, particularly on such matters as the

  601
  campaign against virus yellows, the maximum contributions, payable at the moment, namely, 1d. per ton of beet from the grower and the Corporation, have proved insufficient, and the Committee's reserves are now exhausted. With the approval of the National Farmers' Union and the British Sugar Corporation we are increasing the maximum rate of contribution to 3d. a ton, both from the grower and the British Sugar Corporation.
  Clause 8 gives local authorities permanent powers (which they have hitherto had only under Defence Regulations) to provide for the collection and processing of kitchen waste for animal feedingstuffs. At present, some 220,000 tons of pig food is collected every year by local authorities, and much of it is processed. In this connection, we will all remember and pay our tribute to the late Lord Morrison, not only for his work for many years as Chairman of the Waste Food Board but also for his interest in the pioneer work in this field of his own Borough of Tottenham, from which the name of "Tottenham pudding" is derived. Clause 9 gives us power to control the importation of bees so as to prevent the introduction of bee diseases, such as acarine and nosema, which are prevalent overseas. This is another example of powers derived from Defence Regulations which we want to put on a permanent basis.
  Clause 10 and the Second Schedule, which extend to Great Britain, are designed to apply the provisions of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, to the transport of animals by air, whether to or from this country or within the country. This Act consolidated earlier Acts, some of which were drafted as long ago as 1894, when animals other than birds did not fly. We have all become much more air-minded lately and the recent flight of a large number of breeding pigs to Yugoslavia illustrates how things have changed. The need to amend the law accordingly will not, I think, be disputed.
  Clause 11 makes some minor amendments to the Seeds Act, 1920. These are all highly technical and I do not think I need trouble your Lordships by describing them at this stage in any detail, but I should perhaps mention that, following on recent discussions with the organisations representing the growers, users and merchants of seeds in the United Kingdom, my right honourable
  602
  friend is setting up a small committee to examine in general the working of the Seeds Act, 1920, in the light of the report of the Committee on the qualitative control of seeds. The new committee will consider whether any more fundamental alterations of the provisions of the Act are called for.
  The remaining two clauses apply solely to Scotland. Clause 12 enables the Secretary of State to fix minimum rates of wages for persons employed by him under the Scottish Harvesting Scheme. Clause 13 extends to Scotland the provisions of the Corn Returns Act. The main reason for this is that, to operate the Government's price guarantee scheme for oats and barley, we must have returns of the prices at which these two cereals are sold in Great Britain. These are the provisions of the Bill and it only remains for me to commend it to your Lordships as a useful if rather dull measure which will benefit agriculture in general. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a,—(Lord Carrington.)
  4.30 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord opposite for his careful explanation of the provisions of this Bill. He rightly described it as an unexciting Bill; he even went so far as to say that it was a dull Bill—almost damning it with faint praise. Although that undoubtedly is the case, I think he will agree that it is an important Bill because of its effect on home food production. It is by no means an easy Bill to deal with on Second Reading. It is unprincipled—I do not mean that it is based on a wrong principle, but merely that, as the Tide rightly indicates, there is no principle of policy to connect and link together the different clauses in the Bill. Its proposals range from an extension of the many and onerous duties of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to arrangements for the collection and disposal of swill and, the noble Lord pointed out, for the control of flying pigs and other airborne domestic animals. The result of this absence of any governing principle is that a Second Reading debate is bound to become a fairly detailed discussion on particular clauses—indeed, I think the noble Lord's speech was, very rightly and properly, a detailed explanation on the contents of the various

  603
  clauses of the Bill. I do not consider that that is any disadvantage, in the sense that we can say now what otherwise might have to be said, and is probably more usually said, at a later stage of the Bill, and so avoid repetition.
  It was clear from what the noble Lord said in his closing sentence that, although there is no principle of policy, either in the Bill or in the Explanatory Memorandum, the purpose of the Bill is to increase the production of home-grown food; and however much its proposals may differ inter se they can all be judged by this one criterion. Some will do much; others, I think, a good deal less, to help food production; but I join with the noble Lord in his expression of hope that they will all do something in this direction. For this reason, I agree with the noble Lord opposite that the Bill is a useful measure which deserves your Lordships' support. Indeed, I remember that we in the late Government had already reached the conclusion that legislation arising out of the administration of the 1947 Act would soon be needed. I have no doubt that, had the last general Election gone differently, and we had had responsibility in this matter, we should have produced something on the lines of the present Bill—better, no doubt, but perhaps not very different. One advantage we have in dealing with this Bill is that it has been thoroughly pre-digested in another place. It has not been sent to us like some measures that reach us only half, or perhaps three-quarters, digested; each clause has been minutely examined by a Standing Committee in another place, and the original Bill has already been considerably improved by a number of Amendments which have been agreed between the Parties. This will save a great deal of time in your Lordships' House.
  My Lords, I shall limit my observations to some comments on three clauses which I regard as containing the more important provisions of the Bill, where the proposed changes in the law are of special significance for agriculture and the farming community. Everyone will be glad to see the proposal in Clause 1 of the Bill, to prolong the Minister's power to make grants to farmers towards the cost of ditching and field drainage—the power which, as the noble Lord pointed out, would otherwise end in August. Of
  604
  course, under existing schemes for which grants have been made since the war, many thousands of acres have already been reclaimed, but there is plenty of water-logged land that could be made more productive. Most farmers keep their field drainage in good order and are thoroughly conscientious about it, but if a small man is short of labour or of cash to keep his ditches clear, the public money put into these schemes is bound to be wasted. I hope, therefore, that it will be made absolutely clear to applicants for grants under these schemes that they should not undertake a drainage scheme unless they are, at any rate at the time they make the application, prepared and able to maintain it. I hope that this will be brought home to farmers by their county executive. We must, of course, rely on their good sense in this matter of the maintenance of drainage works, because it would be impracticable and undesirable to inspect every scheme for which monies have been provided by the Ministry of Agriculture.
  The wider problem of land drainage is, of course, untouched by the provisions of the Bill and by the continuation of the present arrangements for ditching and field drainage. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will agree that the existing law relating to the drainage of agricultural land is totally inadequate. Between the small drains and ditches, for which individual farmers are responsible, and the main rivers, maintained by the river boards, there are hundreds of miles of streams which are outside the scope of the river boards but far too costly for farmers, or even large local authorities, to keep in check. We shall lose more valuable farming land this year from flooding unless these secondary streams are taken in hand. When we are still losing land to local authorities and to Government Departments, we cannot afford to lose more land owing to flooding and the conditions which flooding produces. I know that the Government want to get agreement about the Heneage Report before they introduce legislation based upon its recommendations, but the time factor is extremely important. Your Lordships will remember that the Heneage Committee reported in 1951—three years ago. Some time has elapsed since the publication of that Report, and I cannot help feeling that, if

  605
  the authorities concerned are still in disagreement at the end of the summer, the Government would do as well to cut the Gordian knot by introducing a Bill in the next Session of Parliament. I am quite certain that we shall not be able to deal with this drainage problem unless we have a Drainage Bill based on the recommendations of the Heneage Committee.
  My second observation is on Clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill, which alter the constitution and powers of agricultural land tribunals. I am sure that it is desirable, as the Bill sets out to do, to give these tribunals the power to award costs against a person making a frivolous or vexatious reference, and the mere fear of incurring a penalty of that kind should prevent cases of this type from arising. The right of appeal to the High Court on a point of law is another useful change. But more important, I think, than either of those facts is the proposed alteration in the method of choosing the members of the tribunals, other than the chairman. The proposal to give the Lord Chancellor, instead of the Minister of Agriculture, the power to select and approve the panels of farmers and landowners to sit on land tribunals will finally remove this responsibility from the Minister. This change seems to me admirable, because it carries out a principle with which everyone agrees. We all accept the old adage, that justice should not only be done but should appear to be done. In this case it is the appearance of justice that must be secured, and I think it will be secured by this provision.
  So long as the Minister, who, of course, is often a party to these cases, has a say in the composition of a land tribunal, some people will complain that it is not an impartial and independent body. This complaint cannot be made after the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has taken the Minister's place, as he will do under the Bill, in choosing the panels from which the tribunals are chosen. But I think it should be said, and I am glad the noble Lord opposite said, in fairness to the land tribunals, that their decisions in the past have not shown any bias at all in favour of the Ministry and certainly no bias in favour of the Minister of Agriculture. The fact is that in about one-third of the cases they have heard, which have usually been appeals from dispossession orders or notices to quit, the appeal
  606
  has been allowed. That certainly does not suggest that the farmers have not had a square deal. I agree with the view expressed by a Conservative Member in another place, when he pointed out that farmers have always been given the benefit of any doubt when their cases have been heard before these tribunals. Indeed, it may be that the land tribunals should be more severe, if anything, in the interpretation of their duties from the point of view of maintaining the efficiency of agriculture.
  I hope that this change in the appointment of personnel for land tribunals will be made as soon as possible. I see under Clause 4, subsection (2), that the date will be fixed by Ministerial order. I should like to ask the noble Lord opposite, who perhaps would be good enough to reply when he winds up, whether the intention is that the order should be made as soon as the Bill is passed into law, and whether the Minister proposes to fix an early date for this change. If there is any reason for delay—and I cannot imagine that there is likely to be any reason—perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to explain it. There is one respect in which I am still not satisfied about the composition of the land tribunals. I think they should include representatives of farm workers as well as representatives of farmers and landowners. I read carefully the arguments used by the Minister in reply to this objection in another place, and I remain completely unconvinced. I hope the noble Lord opposite will reconsider this decision to exclude farm workers from the personnel of agricultural land tribunals. After all, their qualifications to sit on these tribunals are every bit as good as those of farmers and landowners. As members of county executive committees, district committees and sub-committees of county executives, they discuss and decide every month of the year, whenever these committees meet, questions of good husbandry and good estate management such as are typical of the questions heard by the agricultural land tribunals.
  It has been said, as an objection to this proposed change, that up till now the tribunals have worked quite well without the presence of any farm workers. That is perfectly true, and I am not complaining at all about the efficiency of their work; but, after all, this is not an answer

  607
  to the case for making these tribunals as representative of the agricultural industry as are the county executive committees. It raises an important question of principle. The fact is that since the 1947 Act a feeling of resentment has grown up among farm-workers at their exclusion from this important field of work. They feel that this exclusion is contrary to the spirit of the Act. The Act set up a three-sided partnership in which all the partners had equal status in agriculture, a partnership of farmers, landowners, and farm-workers. By the Act they were associated as equal partners in the local committees responsible for stimulating food production throughout the country, and the Minister has delegated very important powers to these committees. It is vital for agriculture to maintain the good feeling between all three partners in the work of food production. I do not know whether the Government realises that this sense of grievance exists, but I fear that unless it is allayed it will grow in the course of time. It can be put right only by associating representatives of the farm-workers with those of the landowners and farmers in the work of dealing with appeals from the county executives.
  The only other clause on which I should like to comment briefly is Clause 8—my noble friend Lord Burden will deal in greater detail with that clause. I am not at all happy about the provision in the clause that allows local authorities to sell unprocessed kitchen waste as animal feed. Everyone knows that contagious animal diseases such as swine fever, fowl pest, and, indeed, foot and mouth disease, have been spread in the past by the use of raw swill, and anyone who has ever had anything to do with the Ministry has been painfully aware of the way in which these diseases have got a hold as a result of the feeding to animals of untreated swill. We shall never succeed in stamping out these diseases until all waste fed to animals has been processed or sterilised. That, clearly, is a long-term objective; I do not say it is immediately practicable. During the war many local authorities set up plant for processing and treating kitchen-waste that they had collected. I should like to mention, as I am sure your Lordships would wish me to do, that my
  608
  late noble friend on these Benches, Lord Morrison, was a pioneer in this field, and as a result of his inspiration Tottenham set up a processing plant which has been an example to local authorities in other parts of the country. Local authorities have now been released from the obligation to treat their swill before they sell it to neighbouring farmers. It is true (and of course this objection must be very seriously weighed), that if treatment were made obligatory many authorities would stop collecting swill and would simply dispose of it with other refuse; and I expect the noble Lord will make that argument in his reply to what I am saying. But I think there is an answer to the argument. After all, we must set off against the loss of animal feed which would result if local authorities gave up collecting waste and simply threw it away, the lessened risk of disease and the great cost in terms of the spread of these diseases, which is a risk that perhaps is even less justified now than it was in past times, on account of the much lower prices now for oats, barley and other feedingstuffs for which in times past waste has been a substitute.
  I agree—and no doubt the noble Lord will make this point—that the elimination of untreated swill collected in towns would not do away with the spread of animal diseases through the consumption of untreated waste, because, of course, the same thing might happen as the result of waste collected in rural areas. But although the risk of spreading disease cannot be completely removed until this problem is dealt with as a whole and it becomes obligatory to treat all waste, whether town or rural, I think the Government could have gone further by saying that local authorities should continue to treat their waste as they did during the war. I realise that this matter is still under consideration by the Government. They have not yet received the Gowers Committee's Report, and I think the least they could do, in view of the risks they are taking under this Bill, would be to say that they are prepared to introduce legislation next year or as soon as possible after they have received and considered the Gowers Committee's Report. I should like to ask the noble Lord—perhaps he will be good enough to reply when he winds up—how soon he thinks this Report will be available.

  609
  Those are all the paints that I wish to make on the Bill, and I would only repeat what I said at the outset: that I think it is a useful measure, and one which will help food production. I therefore hope that it will receive your Lordships' support.
  4.50 p.m.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I should like to add my word of welcome to this Bill, which I should have regarded as non-controversial, in that it deals mainly with matters which it is generally felt need a certain degree of rectification and improvement. In that sense, it seems reasonable to suggest that it should be widened to deal with another matter which should also, I think, be quite non-controversial—I refer to the judgment of Mr. Justice Danckwerts, in a recent case, which has brought to light what appears to be an unintentional error or defect in the wording of a subsection of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. Many of your Lordships will, no doubt, know the subsection to which I refer. It enables owners to terminate a tenancy, provided that a notice to quit is served within three months of the death of the tenant with whom the contract of tenancy was made.
  It had always been supposed that, on the death of the survivor of a joint tenancy, the owner could exercise his power under that subsection to terminate the tenancy, and resume possession at the expiration of the twelve months' notice to quit. The learned Judge's decision, however, clearly indicates that such is not the position, and that a notice to quit, under that subsection of the Act, served on the executors of a surviving joint tenant is of no effect without the consent of the Minister of Agriculture. For a notice to be effective without such consent in the circumstances of a joint tenancy it is necessary for both, or all, the joint tenants to have died within the three months' period in which the owner may serve notice to quit. I think your Lordships will agree that the chances of that happening with any degree of frequency are rather remote. Thus, an owner who has let land to joint tenants cannot exercise the right which Parliament clearly intended him to have. It must surely be a quite unacceptable position that legislation should be continued which involves a quite unintended result, which, in turn,
  610
  may even give rise to hardship; and I think it only right that this should be corrected as quickly as possible. It may be thought that this is not a very important matter, that it might wait until some other period when more Parliamentary time is available, and that it could be included with other matters in one and the same Bill. I should like to-day to give your Lordships a few figures to show that it is not quite such a small matter as might be thought.
  Information has been sought from a total of 160 estates, most of which average about 2,000 acres. I may say that from these same estates it is customary to obtain information on the subject of rents and other matters which have been considered by Her Majesty's Government in official reports. So far, it has been found from the replies received that, out of a total of 4,990 tenancies, there are 509 existing joint tenancies—that is to say, approximately 10 per cent. Further, there were 113 instances, or approximately 2 per cent., in which there was a surviving tenant of a joint tenancy. Therefore when the figures are put together, they show a proportion of approximately 12 per cent. There are all these cases in which, very probably, the right granted by Parliament to owners cannot be exercised. Accordingly, I hope that it will be possible to admit the importance of this matter and that amendment can be made by the acceptance of a new clause which it is proposed to move on the Committee stage. I think it is most important that owners, as well as tenants, should know exactly where they stand in the matter, and, moreover, that their position should he equitable—which it is not at present. Otherwise, there must be a practically complete cessation of joint tenancies which I think it must be agreed, in view of the figures that I have given to your Lordships, are important, and in many cases beneficial.
  4.57 p.m.
  LORD BURDEN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Listowel has dealt so effectively with the proposals of this Bill that it is hardly necessary for me to add anything to what has already been said except with respect to Clause 4. But, before I pass to that, may I be allowed to say that the Government's policy—or perhaps it would be truer to say lack of policy—with regard to agriculture, is

  611
  meeting with an increased volume of criticism throughout the country. Only this week a respected leader of an agricultural trade union pointed out that the present Government is, point by point, undermining the policy laid down in the 1947 Act. It may, perhaps, be dangerous for the Government to assume that most farmers have many Tory corpuscles in their blood. When the time comes the Government may have a rude awakening. Passing now to Clause 4, I submit that this clause breaks faith with many local authorities who have spent much time and money in the national interest in developing the collection and processing of kitchen waste.
  LORD CARRINGTON: I think the noble Lord is referring to Clause 8.
  LORD BURDEN: I beg your Lordships' pardon—I meant to say Clause 8. This clause breaks faith with many local authorities who have spent time and money in the national interest in developing the collection and processing of kitchen waste. Secondly, the Government's policy may lead to grave outbreaks of foot and mouth disease if farmers either ignorantly—it would be illegal, I agree—or recklessly feed unprocessed kitchen waste to pigs and poultry. Further, I maintain that this policy is being pursued flouting the expressed opinion of the Ministry's own experts and, in addition, the views of agriculturists who are members of the Government's own Party in another place.
  These are serious charges, and in endeavouring to prove my case it will be necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with actual quotations, including one from the Minister himself. The first is from a paper by Mr. F. C. Dawes, a brilliant civil servant, now retired, whose outstanding ability in my opinion has never received that official recognition it so richly deserves. Mr. Dawes worked in conjunction with the late Lord Morrison, having been loaned by the Ministry of Health to the Board of Trade to develop the kitchen waste and waste business. Look at what Mr. Dawes wrote in 1953:
  "Very early in the war, local authorities were officially asked to collect kitchen waste separately, and dispose of it to pig and poultry feeders, with boiling apparatus to sterilise it in accordance with the terms of a Statutory
  612
  Order which specified 'exposure to a temperature of boiling (212 degrees Fahrenheit) for not less than a period of one hour.' The Order was made in 1941, by which time it was known that kitchen waste was a carrier of the virus of foot and mouth disease brought into the country in imported meat.
  "Many costly and wasteful outbreaks of this disease occurred soon after the beginning of the war which the veterinary experts of the Ministry of Agriculture attributed to the extended use of unsterilised raw kitchen waste as a feeding stuff; at the same time the Ministry reported that it was necessary not only to continue to use it, but urgently to increase supplies. This led to the establishment of 66 sterilisation stations up and down the country, and local authorities within economic transport distance of these stations were directed separately to collect kitchen waste and forward their collections to these stations for sterilisation and concentration in steam-jacketed cylinders. … These plants are still operating and more than 200,000 tons of sterile feeding stuff—which is in very keen demand—are produced annually from this class of organic refuse and sold to pig and poultry feeders.
  "Had it not been necessary to introduce a war-time scheme it is doubtful whether separate collections of kitchen waste, which are made two or three times weekly, would have been introduced, but so long as the strong demand for sterile concentrate continues, it is officially hoped that the local authorities, who own and operate most of the sterilisation plants, and private firms, who operate about a fourth of them, will continue to develop this dollar-saving service by increasing the output of concentration up to the level of demand. To achieve this end, increased collections by the plant-owning and the contributory local authorities will be necessary."
  The next evidence I wish to submit to your Lordships is from a paper by Mr. R. K. Macdowall, of the Ministry of Agriculture, on the production of stock-feed from waste materials—I have a copy of the paper here. He says:
  "In this country we have now witnessed more than a decade of widespread effort in many of our towns and cities to recover edible waste materials and convert them into animal feeding-stuffs. The measure of success which has been achieved is sufficiently demonstrated by statistical returns. Since the outbreak of war in 1939 a total of more than 4 million tons of raw material has thus been reclaimed by local authorities in Great Britain. Making due allowance for moisture and foreign matter, this total is equivalent to about 1 million tons of course grains like feeding barley or maize. Kitchen waste from domestic and other sources has been a major constituent of this total, while a small but growing fraction has been derived from commercial and industrial sources. This latter fraction has been of particular value owing to its greater average content of animal protein…."

  613
  The Paper goes on:
  "In this work local authorities have played a leading part. In many of our towns and cities, the officers responsible for public cleansing have broken new ground by the intensive collection or processing, or both, of waste materials formerly neglected. Many of these special wastes have brought their own problems in transport and in processing …
  "The period 1941 to 1951 saw this commissioning of many central processing plants for waste food in or near about one hundred towns. At these the perishable waste materials were sterilised and treated to reduce bulk and make possible their economic transport to rural areas in a wholesome condition. In this way much potentially infective raw material was kept away from farms and livestock, and the risks of spreading animal disease considerably lessened. This prophylactic aspect demands emphasis, for the history of many primary outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease has shown the presence of unsterilised swill on farms to be a major cause….
  "At present about 350 local authorities have the support of the Licensing of Private Collectors Orders which aim at restricting private collections in scheduled areas and promoting the economic operation of organised collections and of the central processing plants. In addition, fifty other local authorities operate independent collection schemes.
  "In the aggregate these municipal collection schemes produce about 1,000 tons of recovered waste daily, of which some 95 per cent. is sterilised at central plants before feeding."
  That is a quotation from the expert of the Ministry of Health.
  The next quotation I submit, and there can be no cavil at this, is from the Minister of Agriculture himself, in a letter dated October 20, 1952. This letter is so important for my case that I venture to submit it in full. It begins as follows:
  "I am writing on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to convey to you their appreciation of the valuable assistance given by your Council in the national scheme for the organised collection and sterilisation of waste food. The scheme produces some 400,000 tons of raw material each year and the total concentrated animal food made available to stock-keepers since the scheme started is about 2¼ million tons. Each ton of concentrated waste is sufficient to feed one pig from weaning to slaughter.
  "Impressive as these figures are they give no ground for complacency, nor do they justify any relaxation of effort. They could well be improved upon and I am asking for your Council's continued co-operation and effort. I know this is a difficult time to ask local authorities to devote money to development, but here they can help twice over in saving dollars and producing more food. I earnestly hope therefore you will arrange for a review of the efforts being made so as to assist even further in the future.
  614
  "The present scheme was started in 1940 as a war-time expedient to conserve food resources and save the shipping space of imported animal feeding-stuffs. But the scheme to-day"—
  that was, in 1952—
  "is every bit as necessary as it was during the war. The nation needs more meat and at this stage it is primarily to the pig we must look to supply that extra meat. We also want more poultry and more eggs. We can have both, if we can feed the hens. There is a continued shortage of feeding-stuffs for both pigs and poultry and we cannot afford foreign exchange to purchase all we need overseas. It is imperative, therefore, that the maximum quantity of waste food should be salvaged to turn it into valuable food for pigs and poultry. We can use all we can get provided it is properly treated."
  The next paragraph is one of the most salient of the letter. It says:
  "Unless salvaged raw waste is sterilised, there is a great risk of animal disease being conveyed to livestock through small pieces of waste containing scraps of meat infected with foot-and-mouth disease, swine fever or fowl pest. The approved central sterilisation plants were erected to overcome this risk by treating the raw waste in factory plants away from live stock so that it is made available to stock-keepers in a safe and easily handled form. Although the stock-keepers are required by law to boil swill before feeding it to live stock, and in their own interests they naturally do their best to carry out their obligations, outbreaks of animal disease continue to be attributed to the taking of raw swill for boiling on to premises where stock is kept. No outbreak of animal disease has ever been attributed to treated waste sterilised at a central plant.
  "Since this Ministry took over responsibility for the organised salvage of kitchen waste in April, 1950, the working of the scheme has been reviewed and the views of the various associations of local authorities and other interested bodies have been considered. I have recently announced in Parliament that legislation to place the scheme (now operating under Defence Regulations) under a more stable basis will be considered when possible, though unfortunately, owing to the present pressure of Parliamentary business, I can give no undertaking as to when that will be.
  "In these circumstances, and with the certainty that there will be continued demand for good quality concentrate for many years to come, I sincerely hope your Council will review their existing arrangements and let my Department know what they can do to ensure that increased quantities of this valuable material are salvaged for animal feeding."
  That letter is signed by the Minister of Agriculture himself, and addressed to Lord Mayors, Mayors and chairmen of councils. I ask your Lordships particularly to notice the statement by the Minister—which, incidentally, in another place, the Parliamentary Secretary of the

  615
  Ministry had what I can only call the audacity to question—that,
  "Unless salvaged raw waste is sterilised, there is a grave risk of animal disease being conveyed to live stock through small pieces of waste containing scraps of meat infected with foot-and-mouth disease, swine fever or fowl pest."
  In passing, I would call attention to the grave risks which are now arising from the use of unsterilised waste food collected from American Air Force camps, particularly so far as fowl pest is concerned. We all know that fowl pest is endemic in America, and anyone using non-processed waste from an American camp is asking for the most serious trouble.
  Reverting now to the main theme, the letter of the Minister of Agriculture is reinforced by one dated as recently as May 29, 1953, signed, I presume, by one of the officials of the Ministry, a Mr. H. G. Lambert. After referring to the new changes, and so on, in regard to the fixing of farm prices, the letter goes on to say:
  "The above extracts make it clear that, far from removing the importance of exploiting sources of supplementary home-grown food, the Government's programme relies on increased supplies of feed in this country. And they do not justify fears of a sudden change at 31st July in the overall demand for processed waste food. But the actual market price of any feeding-stuff is likely to fluctuate during the year with temporary changes of supply—particularly at harvest time."
  Incidentally, the Ministry of Food contributed to these fluctuations by stocking up with potatoes and then suddenly putting those potatoes on the market and upsetting the demand for kitchen waste. The letter goes on:
  "The Ministry would therefore advise local authorities operating processing plants as follows:

  (a) To examine their price fixing and selling arrangements to ensure that they can deal with seasonal or temporary variations in demand.

  (b) To consider further the desirability of making long-term contracts with their contributors so as to ensure regular supplies on an agreed basis.

  Such long-term contracts might include provision for such matters as price, transport allowance, delivery point and time for collections, assurance of supply and reception for a number of years, etc. It might also include a scheme for profit-sharing on such a basis as to stimulate collections. Some plant operators have already made contracts of this nature, and various means have been adopted to stimulate collection.
  616
  "It will be clear that the continued success of the salvage scheme will depend to an increasing extent on plant operators. There is no intention of varying the requirement that local authorities should send any waste food collected to a central processing plant, but the Ministry will in future consider any requests from collection authorities to transfer from the processing plant named in the Direction to another, subject of course to reasonable notice being given. Discussions are still proceeding on the terms of permanent legislation, which is to be considered when possible, to replace the present arrangement…."
  That is as firm an assurance as can be given to the local authorities.
  I now come to what I cannot but describe as the betrayal of the local authorities and those engaged in the raising of pigs and poultry farming. This new policy is outlined in a circular dated December 12, 1953. That circular, geting away from all those promises, says this:
  "The Government have decided that the salvage of waste food by local authorities will in future be on a voluntary basis, and my right honourable friend hopes to introduce legislation in the current Session giving local authorities the necessary permissive powers so that the war-time directions can be revoked. In the meantime, he is prepared to revoke individual directions for local authorities if they wish him to do so. Despite this, I should say that this is a most useful piece of salvage work which ought, if possible, to be maintained as a long-term service."
  Did you ever hear such feeble expressions of direction in your life? Then he goes on—and this is the sting in the thing:
  "Now that local authorities are free to decide whether or not they will salvage waste food it appears to the Minister reasonable that restrictions should be removed from the private collectors, provided minimum animal health requirements are met. It has been decided to amend the Department's practice accordingly. This letter is to advise you, therefore, that as from January 1, 1954, the issue of licences will depend on animal health requirements only. Any collector of kitchen waste who possesses plant capable of sterilising his collected material to the satisfaction of one of the Ministry's veterinary officers will be given a licence permitting him to collect at any premises where the waste is made available to him."
  It is perfectly true that some local authorities raise objection to continuing the policy of processing kitchen waste if this involves a charge on the local rates. But that objection could easily have been overcome, if there had been the will to do it. If the statement of Sir Ralph Enfield in April, 1954, in Lloyds Bank Review is correct, it appears that there

  617
  will be something like £200 million paid out this year in price support so far as agriculture is concerned, and the figure of £200 million and £300 million is mentioned for 1954–55. Out of that vast sum, if there had been the will to do it, arrangements could have) been made for local authorities to continue this useful work without any cost at all to the rates and, at the same time, maintain the supply of foodstuffs. But I suppose the Minister preferred another way. Again in his own words, his policy is to:
  "enable the healthy wind of enterprise, initiative and freedom to sweep away the cobwebs of twelve years of control."
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  LORD BURDEN: It does not matter about the foodstuffs; it does not matter about the spreading of diseases, and so on. I will come to that in a moment.
  LORD CARRINGTON: should not like it to be thought that that extract from my right honourable friend's speech had anything to do with waste or swill. It was about agricultural policy generally.
  LORD BURDEN: Surely, the provision of foodstuffs is part of agricultural policy generally. That quotation, which I have made deliberately, reveals the state of mind of the person, and shows why we have not had made the arrangements with the local authorities which ought to have been made. The circular to which I have referred goes on to say that certificates will be issued to any private collector who possesses plant capable of sterilising the material collected to the satisfaction of one of the Minister's officers. That—and pardon the phrase—is sheer, unadulterated "bunk." What guarantees are there that, having once got a certificate, he is going to sterilise the waste food he has? None at all. He will be perfectly free to sell it in an unsterilised or sterilised state just as he thinks fit. At this very moment, many local authorities are selling tons of untreated kitchen waste direct to middlemen who are hawking it round the farms. One local authority, to my own knowledge, has already sold its processing plant, and others are advertising their plant for sale. The City of Bath are advertising their concentration plant, and a similar advertisement has appeared from the Borough of Luton.
  618
  What is behind this change of policy on the part of the Government? Why are they prepared to run these grave risks? Do they wish to eliminate the use of kitchen waste for the benefit of the big financial interests who control the importation of feedingstuffs generally? Have they succumbed to the pressure of the vast interest of big business in this matter, or what is it? Or is it simply lack of imagination and a so-called dash for freedom? I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am not blaming the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and those people who know all abort it. I place the responsibility fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Minister of Agriculture and his fellow Ministers. I am sure that the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture must hate to see their work of the past decade torn up, as the Minister is tearing it up. I remember that when I was in the railway service any person who moved animals from an area infected with swine fever was liable to prosecution and the infliction of heavy penalties. What, then, should be said to a man or a Minister who deliberately creates the conditions, as the Minister is doing in this policy, likely to bring about the horrible diseases of fowl pest, foot and mouth disease and swine fever?
  I remember reading some words some time ago expressing a countryman's love of the countryside which, although I am a mere townsman, I venture to quote to your Lordships:
  "A land of quiet tilth and cote,
  Of little woods and streams,
  Of gentle skies and clouds afloat,
  And swift sun-gleams!
  A land where knee-deep cattle keep
  Chewing as they stand;
  Of hillsides murmurous with sheep—
  That is my native land."
  My Lords, the countryside, with its enchanting loveliness, is in the grave risk of being ravaged by foul diseases. I beg of the Government to change their policy in this matter before it is too late.
  5.28 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him in the matter of collection of refuse except to say that I should have thought it was a little far-fetched to accuse the Government of betraying the local authorities when what they have done is to allow

  619
  them to make up their own minds about something which is essential to local authority service. I know that my noble friend in front will be able to deal with the point fully, and I am only sorry that I shall not be here to hear him do so. I wish for one short moment to make reference to two points in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I am a member of the Ministry's Smallholdings Committee, and I want to say how glad I am that there is now freedom to go over fifty acres in certain places. I say that particularly because I come from hill-farming country. It is the policy of the Ministry, and rightly so, that a smallholding should be capable of supporting the man who farms it, without his having to undertake any other occupation. In the ordinary way, fifty acres is sufficient, but when you come to rough grazings on the hillside you want a bit more than that, because grazings of that sort of a total of more than fifty acres are, in fact, only the equivalent of fifty acres of good land. We now have some arrangement which helps the smallholder in the hill farming country, and I am glad to see it.
  I should like to refer to one other point. There is a clause dealing with agricultural land tribunals. Again, I speak as one who is not a member of a land tribunal now but who has been a member and knows what it is like to sit on one. As time goes on, more and more weighty decisions are put on those agricultural land tribunals. I think my noble friends in front of me will have no complaint about the way in which, by and large, the tribunals and the individual members have done their duty, but the time has most certainly come when the members of the agricultural land tribunals should be removed from any possibility of suspicion of partisan bias or partisan atmosphere, and, as is proposed in the Bill, should be given a more legal look and be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. I am glad to see that clause in the Bill.
  5.31 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, I told the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that I was going to try to deal with some of his statements. He assured me he would be back in this Chamber in a moment or two. Meanwhile, I should like to say a
  620
  word about a point that is omitted from this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, introducing the Bill, said that one of its objects was to increase food production. He mentioned the grant for land drainage. It has been brought to my attention recently that there is a gap in the present law and the powers of the Ministry of Agriculture to deal with drainage on a small scale. The noble Lord, will, I imagine, say that all matters of drainage must wait until they are dealt with on a comprehensive scale as the result of bringing the recommendations of the Heneage Report into operation. But I suggest that there is one small point which might be dealt with, apart and in advance, and it is this. Contrary to what I and some others have thought was the result of war-time regulations, it appears that there is no power on the part of an agricultural executive committee in the county to insist that a farmer shall clear out a boundary ditch. Such action has become of increasing importance compared with the old days, owing to the break-up of estates and the multiplication of smallholdings. It often happens that a ditch alongside a field of a certain farmer vitally affects the drainage of an adjoining farm a little farther up, and unless that ditch is cleared out, the adjoining farm cannot be properly farmed. Often, quite substantial areas of land remain unproductive simply because they are waterlogged through the negligence of the adjoining farmer.
  I confess that I thought that, under the war-time powers that we took, it was possible, and still would be, to deal with a case like that, but apparently I was wrong. There is no doubt at all that it would be a great advantage to people generally if a contumacious farmer, let us call him, with a comparatively short stretch of ditch, were in some way or other compelled to carry out the obligation of making his neighbour's land capable of being properly drained. I venture to suggest that that is a small point but pretty extensive in its effect, and it might be dealt with without waiting for the major river proposals involved in the Heneage Report. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will deal with the very confused speech of the noble Lord, Lord Burden, who has not returned; therefore I will resume my seat and leave it to my noble friend to deal with that.
  5.34 p.m.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which your Lordships have received this Bill. I agree with the noble Lord opposite that, though it may be not exciting and rather a hotchpotch, it is an important Bill. Some of its clauses are of the greatest importance and benefit to food production. The best thing I can do now is to try to answer some of the questions that have been put to me. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me about land drainage, as has my noble friend who has just sat down. I can answer my noble friend first and say that I have every sympathy with the sort of case which he has in mind. He has already given himself the answer which I was going to give him—that is, that these matters must wait until they can be comprehensively dealt with under the Heneage Report.
  The noble Earl referred to the Heneage Report. I cannot contend that we have acted in this matter in a very speedy fashion. As has been pointed out, the Heneage Committee reported in 1951, some two and a half years ago. I would, however, say this—and I think noble Lords on all sides will agree with me. Not only is this a very complicated matter—as anybody who has read the Heneage Report, and who knows something about the difficulties of land drainage, will agree—but it is also a highly controversial matter. Some of the recommendations of the Heneage Committee are by no means acceptable to all Parties. We have taken considerable pains to discover the views of all those people who are interested in drainage and who will be affected by any legislation. Indeed, we have only recently received the views of one of the organisations most directly concerned in the whole matter. In addition, the particular section of the Ministry of Agriculture which is most concerned with drainage has for the last twelve months been working at extremely high pressure to remedy the devastation which was caused by the floods at the beginning of last year. I use that as a mitigating circumstance. The section has been very busy, and your Lordships will know that it has done a very fine job indeed in that matter. I should have thought that, in the circumstances, in a matter of this complexity, we must make quite certain that we are doing the right thing before we proceed any further, and must also,
  622
  if possible, try to get the agreement of all those concerned.
  The noble Earl also asked me whether or not we were paying sufficient attention to the question of maintenance after these ditching schemes had been carried out. I can tell him that we sent a circular to all county agricultural executive committees on April 22, 1954, in which we specifically drew the attention of the committees to this matter. If I may quote, we said:
  "All applicants for approval of ditching schemes sign a declaration that they will do their best subsequently to carry out maintenance work, but county drainage and water supply staffs are now urged to draw the special attention of applicants to the declaration and ensure that they are not unmindful of their responsibilities for subsequent maintenance."
  So we have that point very much in mind.
  The noble Earl opposite then asked me whether the Government would reconsider the question of workers' representatives on agricultural land tribunals. Very often, I agree with the noble Earl but on this matter I think that he is wrong. What he wants to do, as I understand it, is to increase the number of members on agricultural land tribunals from three to four, the fourth member being an agricultural worker. I have had some experience of county agricultural committee work, and I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Earl that the agricultural workers' representatives have been most useful. Indeed, it would be unthinkable that the county committee could work without them. But in the case of the land tribunal I do not think that workers can be directly concerned in the cases which arise, because all the cases which come before the tribunal are either cases which are between the Minister and the landlord or the tenant, or between the landlord and the tenant; and in no case is the agricultural worker himself directly concerned in the matter. The composition of the tribunal at the moment is an independent chairman who must be a barrister or solicitor of seven years' standing, and one landowner and one tenant. If the number were increased to four, it would upset the balance of the tribunal, and in cases where voting is necessary make for difficulties. Moreover, as I have said, the very nature of the cases before these tribunals is such that the farm worker has no direct

  623
  interest in them. My noble friend Lord Chesham raised the very interesting question of joint tenancies and the judgment which has just been given in the High Court. All I should like to say at this time is that between now and the next stage I will certainly consider what he has said, and whether or not we feel that we can or should do anything about it.
  Now, my Lords, we come to the main "burden" of the debate, if I may make a bad pun, which was that of waste materials. Both the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Burden, raised this question. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, started off with a moderately good-natured gibe about the Government's lack of a long-term policy. We are getting rather used to that. If he will do me the honour of reading the last speech I made in an agricultural debate in your Lordships' House, he will see that we have a very sound and comprehensive long-term policy. I only wish that I could say the same for his Party. My noble friend Lord Hudson and I have on frequent occasions tried to draw from the Benches opposite a comprehensive policy on agriculture, but without any success whatever.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Lord has suggested to my noble friend that he should read the noble Lord's speech in the last agricultural debate, in order to ascertain the long-term agricultural policy of his Party. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to return the compliment. I suggest that, to ascertain the long-term agricultural policy of the Labour Party, he should read our reference to agriculture in Challenge to Britain.
  LORD CARRINGTON: We must not let this develop into a debate on long-term agricultural policies, but I have read that document with the greatest care, and the thing that has astounded me about the agricultural statement is that in the whole of the statement put out by the Labour Party there is not one word about marketing. I should have thought that that was a matter, shall we say, not unimportant at the present time; and it is one on which the Party of noble Lords opposite, and noble Lords opposite themselves, have been highly critical of the Government. But I have not noticed any
  624
  very great statement on that matter coming from them. However, I will leave that, and Lord Burden's gibe.
  The noble Lord, Lord Burden, then went on to make a powerful speech, which was lavish in quotation and gesture, about waste material—he had a thoroughly good time; he enjoyed himself very much. I am a generous person and I am glad that he had a happy afternoon. But if, in the cold light of tomorrow, the noble Lord reads in the OFFICIAL REPORT what he has said, without the expressions that he used, and without the changing tones of his voice, he will see that his case added up to remarkably little. The question of the collection of waste food is a very complicated one, and I should like, very calmly, to deal with what the position really is. Broadly speaking, since 1942 the country has been divided into two separate areas as regards the collection of waste food—first, the scheduled areas, which comprise nearly all the urban centres, where licensing of collectors has been obligatory; and, secondly, the more rural areas, in which licensing has not been necessary. In the scheduled areas about 300,000 tons of swill have been collected every year, and, so far as one can assess, something of the order of 250,000 tons in the unscheduled areas. What the clause of this Bill does—and the only thing that it does—is to enable local authorities to continue to collect and to process waste foods; or, if they wish, to sell the waste food unprocessed. I am not trying to avoid anything; the noble Lord will see that when I have finished.
  The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Burden, have argued that, from the animal health point of view, it is essential that any waste food which local authorities collect should be processed and sterilised centrally. But we have felt that it would be an injustice on local authorities to impose on them obligations which we could not impose upon private collectors. They would be in a much worse position than the private collectors. There is another consideration which I think is important. Since last November, when local authorities were given the option either to continue to collect swill or to withdraw from the scheme (I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Burden, is aware of this fact), about half of the local authorities, which

  625
  represents something in the nature of 25 per cent. of the total tonnage of swill which they collect, have said that they wish to withdraw from collecting swill. There is no doubt that many of them find it difficult to carry on with this collection, and I should have thought the last thing we should do is to discourage them, by the imposition of more restrictions, from continuing the collection of swill.
  LORD BURDEN: Will the noble Lord forgive me? I do not want to enter into a cross-Table debate, but the fundamental point that I tried to elaborate in my speech was that local authorities feel that they ought not to charge these collections as a cost on the rates. This, coupled with the fact that the direction orders as to the delivery of concentrated kitchen-waste to the local authorities have fallen, is the reason why collections have been given up. But the primary fact is that local authorities should not, and will not, incur charges in this matter which fall on the ratepayers. That is the point.
  LORD CARRINGTON: But some local authorities—in fact, 50 per cent. of them—are going on with the collection of swill, and some of them are selling it unprocessed; so I do not think that argument helps. I should have thought that if some of them can do it, there is no reason why others should not. But in any case, from the animal health point of view, there is an Order, the Diseases of Animals (Boiling of Animal Foodstuffs) Order, 1947, under which all meat, bones, offal, swill, broken and waste foodstuffs, kitchen refuse, et cetera, are to be boiled before being fed to animals or poultry and are to be so kept that animals or poultry shall not have access thereto until the material is boiled. So no food can be fed to the animals until it has been sterilised and boiled.
  It seems to me that we come down to this question—I quite appreciate that the noble Lord feels strongly about it: What is the right balance between, on the one hand, animal health considerations, and, on the other, the desirability of getting as much waste food collected as possible, and allowing people freedom to do it? For the moment, at any rate, I should have thought that we ought to let things stand as they are until the Minister has had an opportunity of seeing the Report of the Gowers Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease, which will probably have
  626
  some interesting things to say on the subject. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me when that Committee were likely to report, and I can tell him that it will probably be somewhere towards the end of next month; so we shall have some information then. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, will no doubt put down an Amendment on the Committee stage, so we shall start the argument all over again. I am grateful for the way your Lordships have received this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL
  5.48 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I rise to move that the Bill be now read a third time. I do not think the House will expect more than a few words from me. I should like to thank everyone in your Lordships' House who has taken part in the debates on this Bill. Some have supported the Bill, some have opposed it, but no one has attempted to hinder it. I should like to pay a special tribute to my noble friend Lord Templewood, for his unfailingly generous and helpful attitude throughout the passage of the Bill. I think that in the various stages we have had a pretty full discussion of the Bill. We are about to send it back to another place with rather more than forty Amendments. We have had no Divisions. We have all endeavoured to make it a Bill that is fair. I suppose that is the basic difference between the making of laws in a free country and in an Iron Curtain country. In an Iron Curtain country the citizens may find some edict riveted upon them and they will say, "This is fair because it is the law"; whereas in our country and in all other free countries it is not fair because it is the law, but it is the law because it is fair.
  The real purpose of this Bill is to put the law regarding bird protection on a basis where it is simple and, because it is simple, is intelligible, and because it is intelligible is enforceable, and because it is enforceable will be respected. In bringing my few remarks to a close, it

  627
  suffices to say that no one can be completely satisfied on every single point on a Bill like this. We have all had to give way on certain things, some of which we felt rather strongly about, in order to get that necessary degree of compliance and agreement which really is the essence of a Bill of this kind. And I think nobody has had to give up more in that particular regard than I have myself. I believe this Bill, after a pretty full and fair debate, has now received what might be termed the maximum obtainable degree of support. My Lords, I commend it to you.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)
  5.52 p.m.
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, deserves the heartiest congratulations from the House at having at last successfully steered this most needed Bill to the Statute Book. My only regret on the passage of this Bill is that it has been rather too quickly taken; I feel that if more time could have been given between the various stages it would have been an even better Bill than it is at the present time. It would have enabled us, perhaps, to have devised some means whereby the kingfisher could receive the protection so many of us desire him to obtain everywhere except in fish hatcheries. It would also have enabled us to go more fully into the position of the Brent goose, because I think there has been a considerable amount of unintentional misstatement on that matter. I am not going to weary your Lordships by going into details, but I have in my hand a letter from a very experienced wildfowler who knows the North-east coast of England very well indeed, and his evidence is that the number of Brent geese there over the last twenty years or so has been not about twenty or twenty-two but over 200; and, furthermore, that the former populations of 6,000 a year were of a most exceptional character and over a period of years only, while during the last sixteen years there have been varying numbers from nought to 500 or 600. The numbers at Coquet Island have been 3,500, and another 3,500 only a little further away to the south. It is obvious that far more investigation needs to be carried out before the status of the Brent goose can properly be determined.
  628
  One small point. I regret that your Lordships should have accepted the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, about the continued use of the multifiring shotgun, either the shotgun repeater or the automatic. Even in the United States it has been found necessary to control this very popular weapon so that not more than three shots can be fired out of it without reloading. It is, particularly from the wildfowl point of view, a most murderous instrument, because as the position on the shoulder changes as a result of the recoil at each shot, it is difficult to fire accurately, to single fire at a bird. I have had experience of both forms of weapon and I consider them to be of not at all a sporting nature and not suitable for either game shooting or wildfowl shooting in this country. With those few criticisms, in company, I hope, with the whole of your Lordships, I welcome this Bill, which has been needed for very many years past. It will go a long way towards establishing protection for birds which we have all desired to protect for many years but which hitherto we have not succeeded in doing.
  5.55 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, I do not rise to continue the discussion just restarted by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield; I rise for a different purpose. Let me at the outset thank Lord Tweedsmuir for what he said about me. As a matter of fact, if thanks are due they are due to a great many other people. They are due to the noble Lords who now and over a period of several years have been raising this question. They are due also to the two Advisory Committees of the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, upon whose recommendations this Bill is based. I rise, however, first to point out to noble Lords that we are to-day celebrating a double event. I do not imagine that a husband and wife have ever before passed through the Houses of Parliament not merely a long Bill like this but any Bill at all. We congratulate the noble Lord and the noble Lady upon their very great success.
  Secondly, I venture to point out to noble Lords who have taken an interest in this question that a great deal of the success of the Bill—and I am assuming that the Bill will pass in much the form in which it is leaving the House to-day—will depend upon its administration. I

  629
  have particularly in mind the need for the Home Secretary at once to appoint the new statutory Advisory Committee that is contemplated in the Bill and to ask it to deal with the various questions, of which there are several in the Bill, upon which they have liberty of action. I have particularly in mind the question of the date for the close time for shore-shooting. The Home Secretary, I suggest, should appoint a Committee without delay: and if I might make a further suggestion I would say he would be wise to avoid a mistake that I think was made with the previous Advisory Committee—namely, to have it too big and to have it represent particular interests. I should have thought the kind of Advisory Committee that is needed is not a committee to represent particular interests, but quite a small body of men and possibly women who take a reasonable view of the questions covered by the Bill. If they need expert advice or partisan advice they can get it from the witnesses they summon.
  Having made those two or three observations, let me say that my position is very much the position that has just been described by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I am very glad the Bill is passing, but I do not disguise from the House the fact that I regret certain changes that have been made in it in another place. I think we should have been wiser to have kept to the position adopted in the discussions upon my Bill. However, I fully realise that with a Private Member's Bill of sixteen clauses and only limited time for its discussion in another place, it would not have been wise to face a long-protracted issue upon questions of that kind and it was better to accept the second or third best provided that we could get the Bill. Now, once again, I congratulate the noble Lord and ask him to convey to the noble Lady my equally sincere congratulations. I only hope the Home Secretary will now bring the machinery into operation at the earliest possible moment, and that the machinery will prove effective.
  6.0 p.m.
  LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I should like to support everything which the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has said, and also to join in the thanks and congratulations which have been tendered to Lord Tweedsmuir and the noble Lady in another place. Fol-
  630
  lowing on the Bill introduced in your Lordships' House, they have advanced this question to a point at which a major reform in the existing law will have been achieved. I think that some of the revisions which have more latterly been made, under pressure or representations from various quarters, are unfortunate, but it is too late now to reopen these questions. I feel that all who have the interests of wild birds at heart will look to the administrative machinery to be established under the Bill as the best means of providing the solution. I think that one of the most unfortunate changes made since the Bill was originally before your Lordships' House was the automatic extension of the close time for shore-shooting, which is flat against the views of conservationists and also against those of many wildfowlers. In many counties where there has hitherto been protection after an early date in February, they deplore the fact that, as the Bill stands, there will be an automatic extension of shooting to the 21st of the month. As regards the Advisory Committee, I hope with Lord Templewood, that it will not be composed of a number of representative interests who will come and urge a lot of conflicting points of view—destructionists, on the one side, and sentimental protectionists, on the other. Surely, what is needed is people who have some knowledge of natural life and the biological principles—the whole trend of the natural life of the country—and who can give impartial advice.
  There is only one further matter to which I should like to refer. I am completely unrepentant in my view that the plover has discovered, in the course of evolution, what is the best season of the year for it to try to rear its family. I think the plover is much more likely to be right in that matter than your Lordships. I am sure that we shall all regret having re-exposed the plover to having its eggs taken up to April 15. I do not say that a great many clutches would not be destroyed in the ordinary process of agricultural operations, but, as the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has pointed out, that may equally happen to the second clutch. I feel that a bird which is not by nature normally double-breeding should not be put to the strain of laying this weight of eggs twice over. I hope that the noble and learned Earl, Lord

  631
  Jowitt, will forgive me if I tell your Lordships what a German ornithologist told me three or four days ago. A small town in North Germany was in the habit of presenting Bismarck, on his birthday, with a number of plovers' eggs corresponding to his years. As he grew older, the toll naturally increased. Eventually, the townspeople, partly I think because the bird had diminished in numbers in the locality, were obliged to make up the total; then had to import a contribution from Holland. I trust that the many admirers of the noble and learned Earl in various parts of the country will not hit upon the plan of paying to him the same kind of tribute which was paid to Bismarck, with a similar effect on the plover population of the neighbourhood.
  Such matter apart, I would earnestly ask the noble Lord who speaks for the Home Office to look again, with the noble Lady in another place, at this matter, and to consider whether it is wise to reopen the trade in these eggs. It is one thing to say that the farmer or the landowner who is about to harrow his field may remove the eggs, but to reopen the market and encourage importation from abroad cannot by any stretch of imagination, I submit, be said to be in the interest of the plover. With those few comments, I again repeat that those of us who are interested in the cause of bird protection, in the narrower sense, and the conservation of nature, in the wider sense, tender our grateful thanks to the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill.
  6.7 p.m.
  LORD REA: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, has well earned the gratitude of those of your Lordships who have spoken on this Bill during the course of its various stages. As one who, through ignorance or modesty, or both, did not open his mouth, but listened with the greatest interest, I should like to say to-day that I know there are many people who, like myself, will wish this Bill well. I am glad to see it going on to the Statute Book. I should like also to pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, for piloting the Bill so ably through your Lordships' House. Those of us who saw him last week in the different stages of the Bill, facing fire, cross-fire, and even back-fire on many of the clauses, will have greatly admired the extraordinarily
  632
  lucid way in which he put his case and the great grasp which he showed of this Bill.
  6.8 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I had not intended to say more than a few words. I had meant merely to wish very good luck to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, and his Lady, and to express the hope that this Bill would secure a passage to law at the earliest possible moment of time. I think the noble Lord has been very wise in the line which he has taken. I believe that we have obtained the largest common measure of agreement. I think this House is rather well qualified to speak on a Bill of this sort because we have among us many noble Lords with considerable knowledge of these matters. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, in that I think it was a mistake that we rather rushed the time between the various stages of the Bill. The fact that we had long discussions—there were undoubtedly long and elaborate discussions—is no reason for curtailing the interval of time between those discussions. If anything, it is rather a reason for extending the time. However, I make not the smallest complaint about that.
  The only speech which has struck a discordant note to-day—and it was singularly ill-timed—was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, to which we have just listened. I am really amazed at the attitude which he takes up. I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. If he could imagine that there was an insurance company, whose task it was to underwrite the lives of young lapwings, does he really think that the premium for the young lapwing born in April would be less than the premium for the young lapwing born in May? I should have thought that, to anyone of ordinary intelligence, it was perfectly obvious that if the young lapwing emerges in May it has a better chance of survival from its enemies than if it emerges into the light of day in April. I really think that saying that "the plover knows best" is worthless; it is merely trying to find some reason for what is nothing more than a sentimental objection. In the speech of Lord Hurcomb we saw the sentimentalist coming out.
  It is just those sentimentalists who have done such infinite harm in this

  633
  matter of the peewit. I said this in 1928, when I tried to stop the most unhappy Bill passed in that year. Lord Hurcomb will probably agree with me that the number of peewits has gone down drastically since we stopped taking eggs in April. I doubt whether we now have 5 per cent. of the peewit population that we had then. I believe that the policy which we then adopted was fundamentally wrong. I earnestly hope that under the new system the peewit, that most beautiful and useful bird, will once more enlarge its numbers. I am certain that we have taken the wrong line in the past. However, we have now agreed that we shall have at least a five-years' trial period—I hope it will be longer—and in the course of those years we may begin to see the trend. I, at any rate, am one of those who are prepared to learn the lessons of experience. I may be wrong, and I may find that this does no good at all, or that it makes the situation worse; but if, as I devoutly hope, I find the peewit population beginning to increase, because in future they will be born in May and not in April, I shall be pleased to think that I, too, played a small part in the passing of what I think is a very useful Bill.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, I shall be commendably brief. The noble and learned Earl said he thought the Bill had been rushed between stages, but I do not feel that is so. Even if he be right, it should be remembered that Private Members' Bills are not always as other Bills, because of the difficulties about their time-table. I think it can be said, however, that we have given as much time to this subject as to almost any subject, including major nationalisation projects, that I recall in my time in your Lordships' House. The matter has been very fully discussed and, on the whole, I feel happy that the Bill will leave this House as a very commendable measure.
  I have always believed, as I have said before, that if this Bill is to be a really effective Act of Parliament it must command a broad measure of general agreement and support amongst all the people concerned. A number of noble Lords have spoken this afternoon and I do not think that one has professed himself
  634
  entirely satisfied with the Bill. I regard that as a very good omen. As my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir said, everybody has had to give up something, but we have achieved broadly a general measure of agreement. It only remains for me to say that to the many people responsible, to the Advisory Committee, to the Ilchester Committee, to the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, who gave us an opportunity of discussing these matters on previous occasions, to the noble Lady, Lady Tweedsmuir, who piloted the Bill through another place, and, last but not least, to my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir, we are all grateful. Even if noble Lords do not think the Bill is perfect, I am certain that when it becomes law, as I hope it will very shortly, the law will be an enormous advance on anything we have known in this country before. I think that is all I need say, except once again to thank my noble friend.
  On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  MYXOMATOSIS
  6.14 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take on the Report of the Advisory Committee on Myxomatosis. The noble Earl said: My Lords, before I put my Question to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say, as briefly as possible, exactly what information I am asking for and what I expect the Government should do in this matter of myxomatosis. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord and his Department on setting up a Standing Advisory Committee to consider and advise about methods of dealing with this disease. I am particularly glad that, amongst his many duties, the noble Lord has found time to accept the Chairmanship of this Committee. The value of their work is already shown by the recommendations in this, their first, Report. May I start by asking the noble Lord this question: If this is a Standing Committee, may we expect another Report fairly soon, perhaps by the end of the year? It would be particularly valuable to see what progress the disease had made during the summer and autumn months.
  I ask the noble Lord another question. Can he say how many outbreaks of this disease have been recorded since last autumn, and whether these are now sufficiently numerous and widespread for the disease to be described as an epidemic likely to affect the whole country? The noble Lord's Committee, which reported in March, a couple of months ago, noted twelve outbreaks since last October, and these were located in Eastern and South-Eastern England. I have little doubt that the noble Lord will be able to tell us the disease has spread in the warm weather that we have had since then, and that outbreaks have now occurred in other parts of the country. If these are the facts, and if an epidemic of this killing disease has broken out in different parts of the country, surely we now have a unique opportunity, one which will never be repeated—because rabbits acquire immunity to the disease after a time of rapidly reducing the number of the rabbit population and so saving millions of pounds' worth of home-grown food.
  We all agree that we have failed since the war to effect any appreciable reduction in the number of rabbits in this country. This failure has occurred in spite of our unprecedented efforts to keep down rabbits by the use of what I may call conventional weapons—trapping, gassing and so on. Providence has now placed in our hands a non-conventional weapon, in the shape of myxomatosis. The most important question I want to ask the noble Lord is whether he is entirely satisfied that this weapon will be used to the best possible advantage from the point of view of reducing the numbers of the rabbit population. I must admit that I am far from satisfied. We are failing in this respect to follow the example of Australia. Australia has made better use of this disease than any other country in the world. Four-fifths of the rabbits in two big States—New South Wales and Victoria—have been entirely destroyed as a result of the inroads of this disease, and this has had the effect, as the Report points out, of increasing by £50 million per annum the production from the land. If we could kill off four-fifths of the rabbits in this country, we should save a loss of about £30 million per annum in cereals and livestock.
  The enormous number of rabbits destroyed in Australia was due to a policy of deliberately infecting rabbits with the disease. The Report mentions that
  "seven liberations of the myxoma virus were made between May and November, 1950, in the Murray Valley."
  The Murray Valley is a large area in which there is much sheep farming and these liberations were made in the hope that the disease would spread—as in fact it did. I cannot understand why we should be squeamish about the use of this non-conventional weapon against rabbits when we are prepared to use much more devastating non-conventional weapons against our fellow-men. I am sure that if we had been at war now, or in serious danger, the Government would not have hesitated to spread the disease, and that if they had failed to do so they would have been severely censured by public opinion. I regret the decision of the Government, on the advice of the noble Lord's Committee, to leave the disease to take its natural course and I hope that the Minister will reconsider this decision—there is still time for reconsideration—in the light of the paramount need of the nation for more home-grown food.
  May I ask the Government three more questions about what they propose to do to make the most important recommendations in this Report effective. The first is this: What steps are they proposing to take to make sure that farmers know what to do when an outbreak occurs on their land? As the Report points out, the essential thing is that any surviving rabbits should be killed off, otherwise the immune survivors will breed and multiply. But farmers do not read White Papers or even Ministerial statements, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us that he is instructing the county committees, and the district committees, which are even more important than the county committees, and, of course, the Advisory Service, to provide every farmer with this vital information.
  My second question is this. How do the Government propose to help farmers to clear their rabbits, after an outbreak of the disease has taken place, if they lack the means of doing this for themselves? The Report rightly recommends

  637
  that assistance should be given to farmers if they want it. What form will that assistance take? Will there be a grant towards the cost of clearance? Will rabbit-catchers be made available to the county committees? Will the Government schedule areas in which outbreaks occur as rabbit clearance areas, when they have the power to do so under the Pests Bill, which is now under consideration in another place? I hope that the Government will do all this to help farmers if help is required. My last question—I do not want to take up too much time—is about the domestic rabbit. This is a flourishing industry, and domestic rabbit-keepers should be told how their animals can be protected against the disease. I should like to ask the Government what steps they are taking to make this information available to all the domestic rabbit keepers in the country. I believe that information about the availability of vaccine, about which nobody knows much at present (this is the first outbreak of myxomatosis that has ever taken place), would be particularly welcome. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
  6.22 p.m.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Government have accepted the recommendations in the Report of the Advisory Committee on Myxomatosis. The Committee came to the conclusion that it would not be practicable to restrict the spread of myxomatosis and therefore recommended that attempts to do so should cease. They also thought that to assist the spread of the disease, or to introduce it into unaffected areas, would be undesirable on humane and other grounds. The noble Earl quarrels with that. Every piece of evidence, except one, which was given by the bodies which came to give evidence was against spreading the disease artificially, and we came to the conclusion on humane and other grounds that it was undesirable. The main recommendation of the Committee was therefore that the disease should be allowed to run its natural course among wild rabbits.
  The Committee stressed that every effort should be made to kill off rabbits
  638
  that survive the disease. As your Lordships will know, the time when it is most likely to spread is in warm weather, such as we are having now, when the insects which carry the virus are most active. The best time for killing off survivors is likely to occur in the autumn and winter, when the undergrowth has died down and the disease has abated. Discussions have taken place with representatives of landowners, farmers, farm-workers and of forestry and other interests, and instructions will shortly be sent to county agricultural executive committees on the planning of these follow-up operations. Other recommendations of the Committee which required action were that measures should be taken to prevent the importation of such live rabbits as the cottontail, and that special considerations should be given to the protection of the domestic rabbit. Orders are being prepared to give effect to the first of these recommendations. As regards the second, tame rabbit-keepers are being advised of the steps which they should take to protect their stock, and a leaflet is available. Arrangements have been made for the supply of vaccine through veterinary surgeons and chemists.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I ask whether the leaflet will be sent to domestic rabbit-keepers? How are they to get hold of it? Will they be able to buy it in a shop, or will it be sent to them?
  LORD CARRINGTON: I am afraid that I cannot answer that point, but I will check up and let the noble Earl know. I have a copy of the leaflet here, but I am not sure how it will get to the domestic rabbit-keepers.
  The noble Earl also asked me whether I would take this opportunity of reporting to your Lordships the present state of the disease. When my Committee reported less than two months ago there were twelve established centres of infection in East Sussex, Kent, Essex and East Suffolk. Since then, the number of outbreaks in these counties has doubled; and, in addition, isolated outbreaks have been confirmed in the Isle of Wight, and in the past few days in Gloucestershire,

  639
  Radnorshire and Cornwall. The boundaries of the disease have spread steadily at the older centres of infection, some of which now cover many square miles. If last year's experience in France is any guide, we may expect, with the advent of warmer weather, that there will be a rapid spread of the disease to new areas and that we shall need to think in future of counties in which the disease is present, rather than of centres of infection.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  ROYAL COMMISSION
  6.30 p.m.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

  Telegraph,

  Niall Macpherson Indemnity,

  Swinton and Worsley Burial Board,

  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at nineteen minutes before seven o'clock.