Sitting of 2 November 1954

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

PETITION (PENSIONS)
Mr. Snow: I desire to present a Petition to this honourable House on behalf of 563 of my constituents predominantly but not exclusively resident in the Rushall Ward in the Aldridge district of the Lichfield and Tamworth Parliamentary Division. My constituents feel that a
grave injustice is being suffered by old-age pensioners in particular and pensioners in general, and they feel that the date of any increase in those pensions should not be subject to political considerations and interest. The Petition ends:
"Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that steps may be taken immediately to remedy the situation, and that machinery should be set up within the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for a constant review of the real value of pensions, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Royal Sailors Home Club (Rebuilding)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Minister of Works why an allocation of steel was granted by his Department for the building of the Royal Sailors Home Club in 1950, in view of the fact that no steps have been taken to complete the building.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Nigel Birch): An allocation of steel at the rate of 75 tons per quarter was granted when a building licence was issued for the first part of the rebuilding scheme, which was completed in October, 1953. I understand that work may be resumed shortly.
    Brigadier Clarke: I am sure my constituents will be glad to hear that the work will be resumed shortly, but I understand that there is no money to resume the work shortly, and I am surprised that this allocation of steel was granted at a time when steel was so short.
    Mr. Birch: That, of course, was done by the previous Government.

    Royal Opera House, Covent Garden (Maintenance)
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Works the average annual cost of maintaining the Covent Garden Opera House in good condition under his lease; and the period of the lease.
    Mr. Birch: My Department holds the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, on a 42-year lease from 1949, and sublets it to the Royal Opera House Covent Garden, Limited, which has undertaken all liabilities, including maintenance.
    Miss Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that the maintenance charges come out of the subsidy that goes to the Arts Council? Why does his Department, holding the lease for 42 years, not bear the maintenance charges on its own Vote and reduce the amount of money available to the Arts Council for cultural work?
    Mr. Birch: The money will come out of the Government's pockets anyway, and I think it is better that it should be seen which pocket it comes out of.

    Trees, Royal Parks (Report)
    Mr. H. Fraserasked the Minister of Works whether the committee appointed in April of this year to advise on trees and on special problems of felling and planting in the Royal Parks has reported to him; and whether he will publish its report.
    Mr. G. Williamsasked the Minister of Works if the committee, appointed by the late Minister, to advise him on the trees in the Royal Parks, has completed its report.
    Mr. Birch: Yes, Sir. The Committee has presented its first report, and it is being published today. Copies are available at the Vote Office. I am much indebted to the Committee and I have accepted its recommendations.
    Mr. Fraser: Will my hon. Friend explain the position of the avenue of trees that has been replanted in the Broad Walk, Kensington, where it is reported that foreign beech trees that were imported and planted in the avenue were removed? What are my hon. Friend's plans for the future of the avenue?
    Mr. Birch: The avenue was planted with beech trees, which were, I think, imported from Belgium or Holland. As they have almost all died, they have been taken away again, and the avenue is to be replanted with lime trees.
    Mr. Williams: Will my hon. Friend tell us how the Press got hold of this report before we did? Is he aware that last Friday the "Evening Standard" said that one of the recommendations concerned 200 young beech trees in the Broad Walk, Kensington Gardens? How did the "Evening Standard" get to know that before we were told?
    Mr. Birch: I understand that an exceptionally enterprising reporter had the initiative to ask one of the men who were removing the beech trees.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is the Minister contemplating planting a grove of birch trees?
    Mr. Birch: In arboriculture, it is important to distinguish between birches and beeches.

    Requisitioned Land, Scotland
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Works how many acres under requisition by his Department in Scotland have been derequisitioned during the last 12 months; and how many acres remain under requisition.
    Mr. Birch: During the 12 months ended 31st October, 1954, 285 acres of land in Scotland have been de-requisitioned; 733 acres are still held on requisition.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Arising out of that very satisfactory reply, can my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he is pressing on with derequisitioning wherever possible?
    Mr. Birch: Yes, most certainly. We hope to bring the whole matter to an end as soon as we can.

    Royal Parks (Car Parking)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Works what recent count he has taken of the number of cars parked in the Royal Parks; and whether he has sanctioned such parking.
    Mr. Birch: It is estimated that on weekdays about 500 cars are parked in St. James's and the Green Parks, 800 in Hyde Park, and 400 in Regent's Park. Many cars are parked in places which have not been reserved for that purpose, and, as I informed the hon. and gallant Member last week, I am reviewing the problem with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and the police.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that he is running the biggest illegal car park in London? Is he further aware that he is under an obligation to issue written permission for every car which is parked in any of the Royal Parks half an hour after sunset? Is he issuing, or has he issued, those written permissions?
    Mr. Birch: Not under my own hand.
    Mr. Stokes: Would the Minister not consider it good policy to make use of some of what I call the "dead" horse rides as permanent car parks? They are no longer used for horses. I had in mind the Mall.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: That is flogging a dead horse.
    Mr. Birch: I should not like to express an opinion on that. It raises a lot of rather big questions.
    Mr. Ian Harvey: Is the frontage of Transport House regarded as dead horse ground?

    Roman Remains, London (Preservation)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Works what estimate he made of the cost of leaving the temple of Mithras on the Bucklersbury site in situ before deciding not to purchase it for the nation; and what estimate he made of the value of the 1,200 square feet which it occupies.
    Mr. Birch: The estimate of £500,000 for the cost of preservation took

    185
    account of structural work, and compensation for delay and loss of accommodation. As regards the second part of the Question, the site is being developed as a whole and it would be unrealistic to make a valuation of the part occupied by the temple.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that the "Daily Telegraph" of 25th September—a paper which is not given to exaggeration in these matters—stated that 1,200 square feet was worth £300,000? On that basis it means that an acre of land in that area is worth nearly £10 million. Will he bring that to the notice of both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Housing and Local Government?
    Mr. Birch: I think that assessment of the site value was exaggerated. The main point was that if the owners had had to alter all the designs and bridge over the temple there would have been not only a long delay but the loss of a great deal of accommodation. That was the main item.

    Works of Art (Purchase)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Works what funds he has at his disposal for purchasing works of art; and how purchases are selected.
    Mr. Birch: In this financial year £6,000 has been voted for public buildings overseas and £600 for public buildings at home. In addition there is still £900 in the special fund for works of art provided by the generosity of private subscribers. Purchases are made by my Department on the advice of my Curator of Pictures.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the Minister say whether the famous picture "Autumn Landscape," which was put in the catalogue upside down without any apparent effect on its appearance, was purchased for this fund?
    Mr. Birch: Not without notice.
    Mr. Stokes: Has the Minister looked at the 900 oil paintings stored close together in a single room in Hampton Court to see whether something could be done to make those available for embassies and consulates abroad?
    Mr. Birch: I will certainly look into that.

    Lancaster House (National Gallery Pictures)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Works to make a statement on the proposal to exhibit pictures at Lancaster House.
    Mr. Birch: The trustees of the National Gallery have agreed that if the necessary powers are granted to them by the Bill now before Parliament, Lancaster House will be used to show pictures which cannot be hung at the Gallery.
    Mr. Grimond: May I ask how often Lancaster House will be open and if my hon. Friend can say whether it will all be open or whether only part is to be open to the public?
    Mr. Birch: At the moment the State apartments are open in the summer on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays. We want to wait and see what the demand is for admission. If there is a great demand we will consider opening them more.

    Building Licensing (Termination)
    Mr. H. Nichollsasked the Minister of Works whether he will make a statement about the future of building licensing.
    Mr. Birch: Supplies of building materials have steadily improved during the last three years and productivity in the building and civil engineering industries has risen. Licences are now issued freely in nearly all areas and neither the cost of administering this control nor the inconvenience caused to architects and contractors can any longer be justified. The Government have, therefore, decided to end building licensing and intend to lay an Order in Council before Parliament, proposing the revocation of Defence Regulation 56A on 10th November.
    Mr. Nicholls: Is my hon. Friend aware that this final step towards ending austerity will be welcomed by the whole of the building industry? Could he give an assurance that, so far as he can see, the production of materials over the next 12 months will increase sufficiently to meet the extra building which will undoubtedly follow? Could he give an estimate of the saving in cost following his announcement?
    Mr. Birch: We do not expect very much increase in building—only a small increase next year—for the simple reason that building licences have been freely granted or promised already for everything that is ready. The record over the years during which we have been in office shows that the demand for building materials has created the supply. We expect that next year there will be at least 100 million more bricks available and 500,000 tons more cement. The administrative savings in my Department will be about £150,000 but there will also be savings to local authorities and in the time of architects and contractors.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the Minister think that his announcement is a shocking reflection upon a Government which next year are going to cut the number of houses built for letting to 150,000 and in which the Minister of Education refuses local authorities the right to build the schools they want?
    Mr. Birch: The requirements of the housing and school building programmes were taken into account when this matter was studied. I can reassure the hon. Member that our record in both these respects is far better than the record of our predecessors.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the Minister's statement mean that the decision to prevent hospital authorities from going ahead with much-needed alterations and new hospital buildings will now be changed, and that they will be able to go ahead as fast as they can?
    Mr. Birch: The question of how much should be expended on hospitals is a matter for the Minister of Health.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it the intention of the Government to curtail the housing programme next year?
    Mr. Birch: I have answered that. Questions on the housing programme should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is the Minister satisfied that the proportion of building materials and labour allocated to hospitals, factories and housing is so satisfactory that he can now abolish control?
    Mr. Birch: There has been a great increase in productivity in the building
    188
    industry, and we expect that there will be an extra capacity of £100 million next year.

    AIR POLLUTION, LONDON (MEASUREMENTS)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what progress has been made in the preparations to take special measurements of air pollution if smog conditions similar to those of 1952 should again occur this winter; and the purpose of taking the measurements.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I am glad to say that detailed arrangements have now been made by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in co-operation with local authorities to measure smoke and sulphur dioxide and to identify other pollutants this winter in the London area. During any period of persistent smog, Civil Defence volunteers will help in taking measurements. In this way we hope to discover more about pollution and how it varies from area to area. This information will be helpful in taking measures to abate pollution.
    Mr. Dodds: Does not the Minister agree that it has taken a long time—two years—to think of doing this, in view of what happened before? Will he say how many volunteers there have been to undertake this work? If there were smog tomorrow or next week, would they be able to get down to the job?
    Mr. Bevins: The reply to the latter part of the question is definitely in the affirmative. As for the first part of the question, this was a recommendation in the interim Report of the Beaver Committee. The final Report is expected shortly.
    Mr. Lee: Will the investigation also cover the possibilities of radioactive substances in the atmosphere, which may be having all sorts of detrimental effects?
    Mr. Bevins: No, Sir.
    Mr. Moody: Is the Minister prepared, as a step towards dealing with smog, to recommend that a condition of subsidy in

    189
    the future will be that all houses should be fitted with grates which will burn smokeless fuel?
    Mr. Bevins: That is another question which should be addressed to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Army Act (Select Committee's Report)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the final report of the Select Committee on the Army Act; and whether he will introduce legislation to implement the Committee's recommendations.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): Yes, Sir. The final report of the Select Committee on the Army Act and Air Force Act is a most valuable document and I have already conveyed my sincere thanks to the Chairman and Members of the Committee. The Government intend to bring forward legislation in the near future.
    Mr. Swingler: While I am sure that the House would wish to express its gratitude to the Committee which have worked so arduously, can we be assured by the Minister that, in view of the Government's obvious shortage of legislation for the next Session, plenty of Parliamentary time will be given to consider this very valuable set of recommendations?
    Mr. Head: The Bill will be brought before Parliament and discussed. The time taken is a matter for hon. Members and for the Leader of the House, and not for me.

    Exercise "Winch"
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War to make a statement on the nature of Exercise "Winch"; how many men took part in it; the total cost; why it was held in Belgium; and whether similar exercises will be held in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Head: This exercise trained 264 Scottish Beach Brigade, Territorial Army, in landing stores across beaches. About 5,000 men, of whom just over 4,000 came from this country, took part. By holding the exercise in Belgium, it was possible for them to handle the normal movement
    190
    of stores to the British Army of the Rhine, which were diverted through the beaches, so that the exercise cost much less than if an artificial exercise on this scale had been held in this country. The brigade also got valuable experience in working with the Belgian authorities. No similar exercise is contemplated in the near future.

    Helicopters (Experimental Unit)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for War what decisions have been reached in discussions with the Secretary of State for Air about helicopters for use by the Army; and what arrangements have been made for experiments to take place under Army control.
    Mr. Head: It has been decided to set up an experimental unit, details of which I gave last Tuesday.
    Mr. Dodds: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that after the lessons in Korea things might move a little more quickly, and what does he think about the scathing remarks of Lord Thurlow in another place, when he said that they had been waiting for 18 months for one helicopter in Kenya, and that if this had been available it would have made a great difference to the number of casualties?
    Mr. Head: It seems that Lord Thurlow is unaware that the previous type of helicopter, so I am informed by the experts, could not fly in Kenya, and that is why it was not sent there. As the House knows, I am extremely anxious to give helicopters to the Army.
    Mr. Dodds: Is it not a fact that a Bristol Sycamore has been sent to Kenya, and if it is of no use, why was it sent?
    Mr. Head: As I have said, the previous type could not fly in Kenya. This is an amended type with a special gear ratio, which has been specially made for Kenya.

    Suez Canal Zone (Customs Duty)
    Sir Edward Keelingasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, since 1951, when Egypt repudiated the 1936 Treaty, the customs duty payable thereunder upon wines, spirits, etc., imported by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes for sale to British troops has, though not passed on

    191
    to the Egyptian Government, been collected from the buyers in case it should be decided later to pass it on; the total amount so collected and what has been done with it; and whether, as Egypt has now waived the duty, the money will be handed to British service welfare and benevolent organisations.
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for War how he proposes to dispose of the customs duty collected from British troops in the Canal Zone, now that Egypt has waived any claims to this money.
    Mr. Head: The settlement with Egypt involved the waiver not only of the claim against the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes but also claims by N.A.A.F.I. The net amount has not yet been determined. It will be used for the benefit of all three Services.

    Learner Drivers (Road Training)
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will direct that Army learner lorry drivers frequent busy thoroughfares to a less extent than they are at present doing.
    Mr. Head: Learner drivers in the Army, as in civil life, must get experience in heavy traffic. The roads they use for training are carefully selected and they do not use congested roads until the later stages of their training. I will certainly look into any complaints about a particular area.

    Retired Officer (Address)
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of a retired Army officer who contracted a debt with a textile company, details of which have been sent to him, he will give instructions that the address of the officer should be supplied to the company so that it may recover the debt.
    Mr. Head: No, Sir. But, as the hon. Member knows, the War Office has forwarded a letter to the last recorded address of this officer.
    Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this retired Army captain, while working at Clydebank, got his landlady, who was an old-age pensioner, to sign a form, and he then
    192
    made purchases from a firm in Lancashire and left Clydebank? The firm in Lancashire is pressing this old-age pensioner to pay this debt, which she cannot pay. Is it not too bad that a retired Army captain should do that sort of thing, with the result that the firm wishes to serve him with a notice or summons to pay this debt?
    Mr. Head: It is up to the lady concerned if she wishes to bring legal proceedings. We have had the rule in the Army for a very long time that if a firm wishes to have an officer's address we will always forward a letter; but we have never in the past—and I believe it to be right—acted as suppliers of addresses of officers to firms.
    Mr. Bellenger: While I appreciate the last point of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, is it not the case that the War Office is merely acting, as it were, as a post box and does not take steps to remind officers, whom it thinks are evading their civil debts, of their responsibilities, Which brings officers generally into disrepute? It used to be the case that commanding officers took some action.
    Mr. Head: We have never acted as collectors of debts. In these matters, if an officer continues in that way, it is up to his unit and the discipline of his corps. The War Office has never acted, and can never act, as a debt collector.
    Mr. Wigg: I think that anyone who has studied this problem would come to the conclusion that it would be most improper and unwise to turn the Army into a debt collecting agency, either for serving officers or for those who have left the Army.

    War Graves Commission (Tombstones)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Secretary of State for War how frequently, on the average, the Imperial War Graves Commission replaces tombstones in British churchyards; and the average costs, separately, of an inscribed stone and of fixing it.
    Mr. Head: About ½ per cent per year. This is nearly always because of a flaw. The average costs are about £6 for an inscribed headstone and £1 for fixing.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the national concern of the British people that the graves of our soldiers are properly cared for is not financially exploited, and will he investigate a case, the particulars of which I will send him?
    Mr. Head: I shall be pleased to investigate any case, but it is my impression that the Imperial War Graves Commission takes great trouble to maintain a very high standard.

    Communists (Employment)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to prevent infiltration of the British Army by Communists.
    Mr. Head: Our policy is in line with that announced by the then Prime Minister on 15th March, 1948, on the employment of Communists and Fascists in the Government service.
    Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister's attention been directed to a front page news item in the "Daily Express," last week, entitled, "Army sacks Communist soldiers," stating that the Army had just come to a decision to discharge Communists. If a Regular soldier, whose mother and father are old-age pensioners, joins the Communist Party out of disgust at the treatment accorded to them, is he liable to be thrown out of the Army?
    Mr. Head: That is a hypothetical case. I am not aware of the particular article, but I do not know of any close liaison between the "Daily Express" and the Army Council on this subject.
    Mr. Paget: Are we to understand that to join the C.P. is a simple method of getting a free discharge?
    Mr. Head: No, Sir.

    Stores Export, Sunderland
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to say when the port of Sunderland will again be used for the export of stores to British Forces stationed on the Continent of Europe.
    Mr. Head: I regret that I cannot fore-see when the port of Sunderland will be used again for this purpose.
    Mr. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement about the way in which this traffic was discontinued, and why there was no discussion between the War Office, on the one hand, and the port of Sunderland authorities, on the other?
    Mr. Head: This traffic forms a very small proportion of our movements as a whole, and it is our policy to go wherever the move is cheapest and quickest. It so happened that the opening of new facilities at Leith made that, and not Sunderland, the obvious port for traffic to Hamburg.
    Mr. Willey: The replies which I have received about this matter are unsatisfactory, and now that my dissatisfaction is shared by the hon. Gentleman, will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter again?
    Mr. Head: I am afraid that it is bound to be unsatisfactory to Sunderland, but the point is that this is now the cheapest move, and if I were to deal with it in some exceptional way in order to oblige the hon. Member, I should have other hon. Members asking me why I was wasting money.
    Mr. Williams: I beg to give notice that, owing to the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter again.

    Overseas Commitments (National Service)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for War to what extent the withdrawal of troops from Trieste and Egypt has so eased our commitments as to enable consideration to be given to the reduction of military service so far as the Army is concerned.
    Mr. Head: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on 26th October.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the restriction of commitments should lead in time to a reduction in the length of military service?
    Mr. Head: Yes, if that went a great deal further. As I explained in my earlier answer, however, the present deployment will enable us to build up something of

    195
    a strategic reserve and also partly to counterbalance the present run-down of the Army manpower.

    Personal Cases
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for War what applications were received, other than from the hon. Member for Northfield, for the repatriation of 22971062 D. Hughes, on the grounds of his mother's serious illness; why previous applications were not dealt with; and whether he will in the circumstances have this man brought home by air.
    Mr. Head: Private Hughes himself applied to his unit. This application was dealt with but the evidence available did not then justify immediate leave. As a result of later medical advice, I have arranged for this soldier to be brought home, and he will come by air.
    Mr. Chapman: I am much obliged. But was not an application also made by the lady almoner at the Selly Oak Hospital a long time ago and disregarded by the War Office?
    Mr. Head: When these applications are made, we ask for medical advice as to whether the case is justified for compassionate or other reasons, and we have to take that medical advice. A deterioration in the condition now justifies the turn which has taken place.
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for War why, in the case of a Royal Army Medical Corps corporal, about whom the hon. Member for Northfield has had correspondence and interviews with him, he maintained his refusal to cancel an overseas posting, requested on the grounds of the mother's illness following the recent death of her husband, until the mother was admitted to a mental hospital as a result of receiving the final refusal.
    Mr. Head: When representations were made, the case was most carefully investigated but the medical opinion on the mother's condition did not then justify keeping this soldier in this country. As soon as it was known that her condition had deteriorated, his overseas posting was cancelled.
    Mr. Chapman: Is it not the fact that, in view of the element of doubt in this case, I altered my plea to one of keeping
    196
    the man here for, say, three months, so that the woman could get over the death of her husband? Would that not have been a human and generous thing to have done? Can we take it that the War Office will be completely inelastic in these matters in future?
    Mr. Head: No, Sir; we are far from inelastic. I believe that the hon. Member talked to my hon. Friend about this matter. We have to combine medical and human reasons and to decide what should be done. We have had no fewer than 300 people flown back from the Middle East in the last six months, and a great deal of this kind of thing is done. This case was not considered worthy at the time, but it now is.

    Compassionate Cases (Policy)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds compassionate postings are now arranged; and whether he will review present policy on this matter.
    Mr. Head: Compassionate posting in the Army was abolished in January, 1947. Compassionate cases are dealt with by leave, temporary retention in this country or discharge.
    Mr. Chapman: Does the Secretary of State agree that the international situation has improved a good deal and that questions of urgency which could have governed the cancelling of compassionate postings have largely disappeared? Could we not take it that we are not now very near to war and could revert to having real compassionate decisions in these cases?
    Mr. Head: As I think any other hon. Member who has had to handle this matter would agree, compassionate postings would lead to a very large number of applications with the system of National Service, in which full use of a man's service has to be made. We have still a very large proportion of soldiers abroad and I am satisfied that the most deserving cases are dealt with by these other means.
    Mr. Nicholson: Am I right in thinking that applications for compassionate posting are considered only if the application is made by the man concerned?
    Mr. Head: No, Sir; but we do not push through such postings unless we know that the man concerned wishes to come home. There have been instances of these pleas being made without consulting the man concerned and without his desiring to come home.

    Missing Personnel, Korea
    Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for War to make a statement regarding those officers and men still recorded as missing as a result of the operations in Korea.
    Mr. Head: I regret to say that no information about any of these men has been forthcoming from the Chinese Government as a result of inquiries which have been going on since June. In the circumstances I feel that I have no alternative but to presume their death. Their next of kin have been so informed. I would take this opportunity of extending to all the relatives my deep sympathy with them in the loss which they have sustained and in the anxiety they have suffered over a long period.
    Mr. Wyatt: Does this mean that the Secretary of State is now satisfied that there are no prisoners unaccounted for in the hands of the Chinese or the North Koreans?
    Mr. Head: In these matters one can never be absolutely certain, but I thought it best to make this presumption at this stage rather than to wait over a very long period on the offchance that one man might turn up, because people living in this state of anxiety are placed in a difficult position in many ways.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does this mean that the dependants of these men will now be able to get pensions which have hitherto been denied them?
    Mr. Head: Yes. The details will be explained by my hon. Friend, as there is, I understand, an Adjournment debate on the subject tonight.

    Arrested Guardsmen, Holland
    Mr. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that two Grenadier Guardsmen have been under open arrest for some weeks at the Hook of Holland as the result of a motor smash following the Arnhem celebrations; that no civilian charge has been preferred
    198
    against them; and if he will permit one of them to return home for a few days because of urgent domestic matters, particulars of which have been sent to him.
    Mr. Head: Following the incident, these guardsmen were placed under open arrest pending a decision whether they were to be dealt with by the civil or military authorities. It has now been agreed with the civil authorities that they will be tried by court martial. The personal problem of one of the men is being looked after.
    Mr. Osborne: I am grateful for that answer, but does my right hon. Friend not think that it is a monstrous injustice that two British soldiers should be kept under open arrest in a foreign country for weeks without a charge being preferred against them? Will he see that this does not happen again?
    Mr. Head: No, Sir, I do not think it is a monstrous injustice. These men went there for the Arnhem celebrations. They stole a car and smashed it up, and one of them was in hospital for two weeks. They were then placed under open arrest while the Army had first to get evidence translated from the Dutch and get evidence from the other guardsman, who had come home, and while the Dutch authorities decided whether the men should be tried by court martial or in a civil court. By and large, they did no credit to their country in Holland, and I do not think any great inconvenience has been caused.
    Mr. Holman: Do the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman justify a delay of six weeks in handling this matter? Is it not a fact, as stated by the mother of one of these men, that they had nothing to wear except the clothes they stood up in six weeks ago? I consider it disgusting.
    Mr. Head: As I have said, a fortnight was spent in hospital by one of the two men. Subsequently the evidence had to be obtained and sifted and the decision of the Dutch authorities had to be awaited. These things take time.
    Mr. Shinwell: Was it altogether fair for the right hon. Gentleman to use the language he did about the conduct of these men, in view of the possibility of a court martial being held?
    Mr. Head: I merely stated the offence with which these men were to be tried

    199
    but I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I should like to withdraw and to apologise for stating definitely that they had done their country no credit when there is a perfectly good chance that they may be acquitted; I went too far. I meant to say that too much sympathy was shown to these men, judging by what they were alleged to have done, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I wish to withdraw what I said.
    Mr. Osborne: Apart from the merits of the case, is it not wrong that men should be left in a foreign country, under open arrest, with no charge preferred against them, for weeks and weeks? The matter might not have come to a head if I had not accidentally run across it.
    Mr. Head: No, Sir; my hon. Friend is quite misinformed about these men. They were not alone and uncared for in a foreign country. There is No. 41 Garrison at The Hook and these men, who were under open arrest, were based on that garrison.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Advertising Expenditure
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an estimate of the total national expenditure on advertising for 1948 or 1949 and for the latest date.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): No official estimate is available. The best available estimate, made by the Advertising Association, gives the approximate figures of £144 million for 1949 and £230 million for 1953.
    Mr. Wilson: Do not these figures, issued by the Advertising Association, show that expenditure has practically doubled since 1948? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not consider that this is a wasteful use of our resources? Furthermore, is he aware that in 1948 Sir Stafford Cripps, in effect, dropped his proposals to tax advertising on receiving an assurance from industry that expenditure on advertising would be kept down to a reasonable limit?
    Mr. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that his Question asked only for statistical information. On
    200
    the merits, I think there is no general agreement among economists on this matter, but I do not think it would be advisable to discuss that in Question and answer now.
    Mr. Ian Harvey: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this expenditure is less than 2 per cent. of the national income and that quite a proportion of it is contributed by the co-operative societies?
    Mr. Strauss: I was careful not to speculate at all on these controversial subjects, but my hon. Friend is quite right that it is a small proportion of the national product that is represented. As regards the difference between the two years, more goods are now being advertised.
    Mr. Wilson: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that some of these resources should be diverted to actual production or investment?
    Mr. Strauss: In answer to a purely statistical question I do not propose to debate a matter which is the subject of dispute among economists, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well.

    Mercury Supplies
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the shortage and high price of mercury for industrial purposes; and if he will make representations to the United States Government about the consequences of their policy of stockpiling mercury.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I am aware of the rise in the price of mercury, but my information does not suggest that there is any serious difficulty in obtaining supplies for industrial purposes in this country. I know of nothing in the situation which would justify representations to the Government of the United States.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently acute concern has been expressed on this question by industrialists, and in some of the City columns of reputable newspapers? Will he have another look at it and see whether there is not increased stockpiling?
    Mr. Low: I have had a look at this matter. It is my information that the

    201
    importers and main users in this country do not expect undue difficulty in the maintenance of supplies. I have no evidence that the increased imports by the United States of America are due to increased stockpiling.

    Joint Clothing Council
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from employers and trade union representatives, respectively, about the future of the Clothing Industry Council; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Strauss: Since the withdrawal of the Wholesale Clothing Manufacturers' Federation and the British Mantle Manufacturers' Association from the Joint Clothing Council, my right hon. Friend has discussed the situation with the two seceding bodies, the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers, the Trades Union Congress and the Joint Clothing Council. The seceding bodies have stated that their decision is irrevocable. The others consider that the Joint Clothing Council should continue despite the secession, and the Council has asked for legislation to provide finance for its work. My right hon. Friend has informed the Joint Clothing Council that he is not prepared in all the circumstances to introduce legislation, and the Council has indicated that it may put forward further proposals when it has re-examined its position.
    Mr. Wilson: Is not this a scandalous piece of sabotage of the public interest by the parties concerned, and does not the hon. and learned Gentleman recall that the President of the Board of Trade, when commending the dissolution Order relating to the Clothing Industry Development Council in December, 1952, gave us as one of the main reasons that it was to be replaced by this voluntary council. Since the voluntary council has been sabotaged, will the hon. and learned Gentleman revive the proposal for a development council?
    Mr. Strauss: I thought it best to keep my answer purely factual, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that some of the hopes expressed at that time have not been fulfilled. While the agreement between the parties, as then outlined to the House, was accurately described,
    202
    neither the Government nor anybody else have it in their power to compel people to continue to agree.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that what was debated on that occasion was the decision to dissolve the Development Council, and have the Government not got power under the Act passed by the previous Government to recreate that development council, in view of the way in which they have been let down on this occasion?
    Mr. Strauss: I do not think it in the least follows that it would be a good thing to recreate the development council.

    Commercial Information Overseas (Committee)
    Mr. J. Rodgersasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken, following the report of the Independent Committee of Inquiry into the overseas information services, to set up an advisory committee of industrialists to survey the whole field of commercial publicity overseas.
    Mr. Low: A committee has now been appointed, and I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of its membership and terms of reference.
    Mr. Rodgers: Would my right hon. Friend say, first, what arrangements have been made to co-ordinate the work in this committee with the Foreign Publicity Committee which meets, I believe, under the chairmanship of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury? Secondly, can he say whether the Government have yet given any further thought to the suggestion made from both sides of the House that this very important work should be co-ordinated by a Minister without Departmental responsibility, such as the Lord President of the Council?
    Mr. Low: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, I think that my hon. Friend is referring to a Foreign Office Departmental committee which includes representatives of the Board of Trade. In addition, arrangements have been made for officials of all Departments concerned, including the Foreign Office, to attend meetings of this

    203
    new committee. As to the second part of the question, I should like more notice.
    Mr. Bottomley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Trades Union Congress has been invited to send representatives to serve on the advisory committee?
    Mr. Low: Not without notice.
    The details are as follows:
    An Advisory Committee on Commercial Information Overseas has been set up with the following terms of reference:
    "To keep under review the range and character of the information about United Kingdom commercial and industrial activities and achievement which is made available through official and non-official channels to and in the various overseas markets; and, in particular, in the interests of the export trade:

    (a) to suggest ways in which the information supplied through the existing official channels can be improved, including that supplied by industry; and

    (b) to explore the possibilities of increasing the information supplied through non-official channels.

    And to report their recommendations from time to time to the President of the Board of Trade."
    The Chairman is Mr. Laurence Heyworth, and the other members are Sir Richard Costain. Sir Patrick Hamilton, Mr. J. Douglas Hood, Mr. Hubert Oughton and Mr. Claude Wallis. The Secretary is Mr. A. B. Savage, Information Division, Board of Trade.

    Machine Tools (Exports to U.S.S.R.)
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for licences to export machine tools to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are at present under consideration by his Department; and the total value of the goods involved.
    Mr. Low: Eight applications. The value of the goods is £1,400,000.
    Mr. Bottomley: In view of the importance of the Russian market in particular to the machine tool industry, and bearing in mind that our competitors are getting in and getting these markets, ought not the right hon. Gentleman to give special attention to this subject?
    Mr. Low: I am, of course, ready to give special attention to this subject; but I do not think there is any reason to be anxious about this particular case. I have ascertained from the manufacturers
    204
    that no business is being lost or held up. All the eight applications relate to orders for delivery several months ahead.

    Children's Comics (Importation)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the President of the Board of Trade the estimated dollar expenditure on comic papers intended for children from the United States of America; and if he will take action to restrict the import of such harmful reading material.
    Mr. Rankinasked the President of the Board of Trade what licensing arrangements apply to the importation of United States horror comics.
    Mr. Low: No licences are issued for bulk imports of comics from the U.S.A. Single copies of any periodical, magazine or the like may be imported through the post from any source, under open general licence, by persons who pay or have paid the overseas supplier direct. The value of imports of comics by post is not known but is believed to be negligible. Without postal censorship it would not be practicable to ensure their exclusion from the mails.
    Mr. Chetwynd: But the point in the Question is concerned with the matrices from which the comics are printed in this country. Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with that point?
    Mr. Low: If that is the point, I would say that there is another Question on the Order Paper which deals with it, and I will answer it then.
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, pending a final decision as to action in connection with horrific comics, he will take steps to ban the import of matrices.
    Mr. Low: I sympathise with the hon. Member's anxiety about these horrific comics. But I am afraid that it would be neither proper nor practicable for the Government to use their powers of import restriction as a means of imposing a form of censorship. These powers are used to safeguard our balance of payments.
    Mr. MacPherson: Is it not the case that the importation in bulk of these comics

    205
    is already prohibited, and can the right hon. Gentleman say what exactly is the practical difficulty about importing the matrices?
    Mr. Low: The present position is that matrices, micro-films and other things like that which are used for printing comics, can only be legally imported from North America under specific individual licences. Such licences are issued freely in view of the small charge they make on our balance of payments, and some matrices would be quite unobjectionable to the hon. Gentleman. It would be difficult to distinguish.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree that in determining whether a licence shall be given or not, some regard must be had to the value to our economy of the imported article, and does he suggest that even a single farthing of British money is well spent on these articles?
    Mr. Low: I think that the hon. Gentleman and the House are aware that the Home Secretary is considering the whole question of these horrific comics, including the question of importation. My answer referred to the existing powers of import control of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Ede: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication as to the actual money involved?
    Mr. Low: It is a very small amount, and there are few applications.

    Scientific Instruments (Export Embargo)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the evidence which he has received from members of the Scientific Instrument Manufacturers Association to the effect that the embargo on certain standard types of scientific instruments, by encouraging the Eastern European countries to manufacture for themselves, causes damage to the British export trade; and what action he will take.
    Mr. Low: This evidence is being examined. I must stress, however, that evidence of this nature is not the only factor which has to be taken into account in settling an internationally agreed strategic control.
    Mr. Swingler: In view of the mounting volume of evidence of this kind, would the Minister of State not agree that an embargo, which only stimulates countries put under it to manufacture themselves, is self-defeating? Further, will he consider immediately relaxing the controls when it is quite clear that these are the effects that the embargoes have?
    Mr. Low: We will certainly examine the evidence. The list of all types of scientific instruments covered by the embargo has been reduced in recent months from 26 to 16 items, and some important items have been taken off the list. I think the House will agree that the fact that the Soviet bloc can produce quite a number of strategic goods is no reason by itself for supplying them with more.

    Film Quota
    Mr. Wyattasked the President of the Board of Trade which members of the Films Council are associated with cinemas which have not fulfilled their quota requirements for the three years ended 30th September, 1954; and which are the cinemas involved in these defaults.
    Mr. H. Strauss: As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member on the 1st April last, it is not for the Board of Trade to decide whether any exhibitor is or is not guilty of failure to fulfil his quota obligations under the Cinematograph Films Acts. A court of law alone can decide this question.
    Mr. Wyatt: While thanking the Minister for that very pompous answer, may I ask him if he is aware that it is an obligation on the cinema owner to prove to the court that he had justification for not fulfilling the requirement? The fact whether he has or not fulfilled the requirement is ascertainable by the Ministry concerned. Why do we now have all this secrecy when in the past we used to be told the names of the persons concerned and the cinemas concerned?
    Mr. Strauss: I will not discuss with the hon. Member either pomposity or bumptiousness. The answer I gave sets out the legal position with accuracy.
    Mr. Wilson: In that case, will the hon. and learned Gentleman say exactly what are the functions of the quota defaults sub-committee of the Films Council?
    Mr. Strauss: Not on this Question.

    Waste Paper (Salvage)
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the salvage of waste paper now serves any useful purpose; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Strauss: Yes, Sir. Waste paper is a valuable raw material, which is now being used at the rate of one million tons a year in the manufacture of paper and of board for packing. This saves foreign exchange and helps to keep our mills in full production. There is also a small but useful export trade.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: May we take it from that reply that my hon. and learned Friend wants to encourage local authorities to press on with their schemes of salvage?
    Mr. Strauss: At the present moment collection and consumption are about evenly balanced. I cannot say, therefore, that there is any great need of new action.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Could we not divert all the horror comics into this useful channel?
    Mr. Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that Thames Board Mills are urgently appealing for more waste paper, and will he do all he can to get the local authorities to co-operate?
    Mr. Strauss: I am anxious that what is required Shall be obtained.

    Monopolies Commission (Members)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the President of the Board of Trade who are the present members of the Monopolies Commission; and what experience each of them has had in the management of productive industry.
    Mr. H. Strauss: Since the answer contains a list, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The members of the Commission cover a wide range of interests and experience, and my right hon. Friend does not think that it would serve a useful purpose to specify the precise experience of each.
    Mr. Johnson: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend if he would not agree that a greater amount of practical experience
    208
    of productive industry amongst the members of the Monopolies Commission would result in their proceedings being much less protracted, much less costly and much more effective?
    Mr. Strauss: I do not think that those implied criticisms of the Commission are justified.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman communicate to his hon. Friend the difficulties that both the previous and present Government have had in finding industrialists of practical experience who are not connected with some cartel or organisation?
    Mr. Strauss: No, I do not think that is fair either.
    Following is the list:

  Trading Estate, Sunderland (Factories)
  Mr. P. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the occupation of unused factories on the Pallion Trading Estate, Sunderland.
  Mr. H. Strauss: The Board of Trade are in negotiation with several companies interested in these factories, but I cannot yet state the outcome.
  Mr. Williams: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the chairman of the North East Trading Estate stated last week that it was expected that some firms would be willing to take over certain of these factories in the near future? When does he expect to be able to make a statement about them?
  Mr. Strauss: I do not think it would help if I gave any particulars of pending negotiations, but I am fairly optimistic.
  Mr. Willey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I have been very considerate to him in not pressing this matter in the House, but one of these factories has now been closed for 12 months, and it is really thoroughly unsatisfactory to give such a reply as we have heard today. We feel that we are entitled to hear what concrete steps the Board of Trade is taking to get this factory occupied.
  Mr. Williams: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the figure of employment this time last year was 46,000 and that now it is 47,250?
  Mr. Strauss: I am aware of the relevant figures, but they are not relevant to this reply.
  Mr. P. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the progress of the building of new factories at the Pallion Trading Estate, Sunderland.
  Mr. H. Strauss: The building of a factory of 210,000 sq. ft. for the Edison Swan Electric Company Limited is making good progress. It is hoped that it will be completed next autumn.
  Mr. Williams: Is this statement not evidence of the fact that there is continued confidence in Sunderland and the North-East in the future of good Conservative rule?
  Mr. Willey: Am I to understand from the reluctance of the Parliamentary Secretary to reply that he thoroughly disagrees with that?
  Mr. Strauss: I share the optimism evidently felt in the North-East.

  UNITED KINGDOM AND CHINA
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister what steps he has taken since last June to bring about a meeting between himself and Mr. Chou En-lai, of China; and with what result.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): Sir, I have not taken any steps.
  Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister not realise that it would be helpful to international relations to take such steps,
  210
  and to indicate the circumstances in which he thinks such a meeting would be propitious?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think I had better try to add to my answer.
  Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. I hereby give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

  NUCLEAR AND ATOMIC EXPLOSIONS
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the further nuclear explosions in Russian territory, he will propose to President Eisenhower and Mr. Malenkov that all nuclear and atomic explosions should be suspended pending the outcome of the further meetings of the sub-committee of the United Nations Disarmament Commission.
  The Prime Minister: We should all be much happier if there were no need for nuclear and atomic explosions.
  There are several proposals regarding these weapons before the United Nations; it is there that a solution should be sought at the present time, and I am not at present persuaded that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion would aid the solution.
  Mr. Henderson: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the suspension of nuclear and atomic explosions would greatly lessen the suspicion and mistrust which today exist, and which are making the achievement of a world disarmament agreement so difficult?
  The Prime Minister: I am not convinced that the cessation, wholly or partly, of these explosions would be best advanced by our intervention, or by my personal intervention, at the present time.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to make clear at some suitable time his attitude on the question of a treaty or pact of renunciation by the leading world Powers of the first use of the atomic bomb or the hydrogen bomb?
  The Prime Minister: Well, Sir, I think that should be considered along with all other proposals to lift this cloud of peril from the world.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Has not the suggestion of the noble Lord been embodied in the Anglo-French Memorandum which the United Nations Disarmament Commission is now considering?
  The Prime Minister: That is very good.
  Mr. Paget: Can the Prime Minister tell us how many of these explosions it will take to make the atmosphere lethal, and whether they are cumulative?
  The Prime Minister: I believe they are cumulative, and certainly an undue number of them might have very serious effects. I am informed, however, that 5,000 years is about the limit of the time during which the atmosphere would be afflicted. I do not mean to treat in a facetious manner what is perpetually in all our minds.

UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC STAFFS (SALARIES)
Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the salaries paid to university teachers compare unfavourably with those paid in industry and in comparable professions, including the Civil Service; that, in consequence, there is dissatisfaction among university teachers with the level of their salaries; and what steps he is taking to improve the relevant salary rates and when these improvements will begin to take effect.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): Though I do not necessarily accept the generalisation contained in the first part of the Question, I am aware of the importance which the academic staffs of the Universities attach to the revision of their salaries, and I hope before long to be in a position to make a statement.
Mr. Hughes: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise that the propositions stated in the first part of the Question are accurate, that the situation is ethically wrong and economically unsound, and will he take steps to rectify it in the interests of education?
Mr. Butler: It would be a bold person who generalised about all university salaries in the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman does, but I understand the complexities.
Mr. Follick: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is a scandal that a comic actor can in one week be paid three times the amount of money that the average university professor could earn in an entire year?
Mr. Butler: It is quite a scandal that some of us are not paid a little more too.

BRITISH GUIANA CONSTITUTION (REPORT)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. BRAINE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the Report of the British Guiana Constitutional Commission.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): With permission, I will now reply to Question No. 70.
The Report of the British Guiana Constitutional Commission has been published today as a Command Paper. My right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, has discussed it with the Governor during his recent visit to British Guiana and Her Majesty's Government accept the conclusions of the Report. Hon. Members will wish to study it and I will not, therefore, go into details now.
Briefly their conclusions amply justify the action taken by Her Majesty's Government last October. They state that the breakdown was not due to defects in the Constitution, but to the activities of those in control of the People's Progressive Party. They recommend that there is at present no alternative to a period of marking time in constitutional matters. They do not recommend a specific period, nor do Her Majesty's Government wish to be tied to one.
Her Majesty's Government, however, consider it desirable to set some maximum term to the personal appointment of the present Members of the Legislative Council without prejudice to when it may be possible to hold elections again. The present appointments will, therefore, run for four years from 1st January, 1954. During the period of this interim Government, it is our firm intention to do everything possible to fit the Colony for a

213
return to representative government. In particular there will be a thorough reform and extension of local government institutions.
Members will no doubt wish to question me when they have studied the Report. I should like to express the warm thanks of Her Majesty's Government to Sir James Robertson, formerly Civil Secretary of the Sudan, who was Chairman of the Commission, and to the other two members, Sir Donald Jackson, Chief Justice of the Windward and Leeward Islands, and Mr. Woodcock, Assistant General Secretary of the T.U.C.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Do I gather that the Report justifies the action of the Government? Is that a specific finding of the Commission or is that the Secretary of State's inference from it? Last week we had a very important statement on colonial policy in another Colony and now we have one on British Guiana. May I ask whether the Government do not feel that they are now under an obligation to the House to provide an opportunity to discuss the statements, because none of us wants to take time from other debates at the end of Question time?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, of course, is not a matter for me. As to the first part, if the right hon. Gentleman reads the Report, he will find my words amply justified.
Mr. Griffiths: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the fact that in two successive weeks we have had two important statements on colonial problems, he will consider providing Government time for their discussion?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I cannot make any pronouncements on business today.
Mr. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the matter consideration?
Sir R. Robinson: Were the findings of the Commission unanimous?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: Whilst reserving questions on the Report until we have had the opportunity to read it, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman
214
would not seek to obtain a better atmosphere in British Guiana immediately by releasing those who are now in prison and removing restrictions on free movement?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot see that a better atmosphere would be created by condoning breaches of the law.
Mr. Braine: During the interim period which is envisaged by the Report, what will happen to economic development in the Colony?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Meanwhile a development programme, and in particular housing and land settlement, will be pushed forward, I hope with the greatest vigour.

ONTARIO HURRICANE RELIEF FUND (CONTRIBUTION)
The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): With the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement. Hon. Members will be aware of the loss of life and devastation in the Province of Ontario caused by the recent hurricane. As a token of their deep sympathy with the victims of this disaster Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have informed the Government of Canada of their desire to make a contribution of £25,000 to the Ontario Hurricane Relief Fund. The Canadian Government have expressed their great appreciation of this gift.
Mr. Attlee: On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends I should like to join in that expression of sympathy, and to say how glad we are that the Government have made this contribution.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his words.
Mr. C. Davies: I am sure that every hon. and right hon. Member will join in the expression of deep sympathy with all who have suffered in this disaster. I am sure also that everyone will agree with this token—and it is only a token—of sympathy with Canada which has always been the first to come with sympathy and real aid to our assistance in times of trouble.
Mr. Gordon Walker: Whilst, of course, agreeing with the Government's action, may I ask whether it would not have been wiser to take that action a little more promptly, in order to avoid the sharp and pointed comments which have been made in some parts of the Canadian Press because of the delay in announcing a decision?
Mr. Dodds-Parker: It is always better to make certain first in what form help is desired, whether in cash or in other aid.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN
Sir Eric Errington, for Aldershot.
Arthur Reginald Probert, Esquire, for Aberdare.

MIDDLE EASTERN AFFAIRS
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]
3.40 p.m.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): Today's debate covers a wide area and a number of important topics. I will, if I may, concentrate on the principal questions involved: Arab-Israeli relations, our Agreements with Egypt and Persia, the Sudan and the Arbitration Agreement with Saudi-Arabia. I will not go outside the Middle-East, as I understand that arrangements will be made for a debate on the Far East and the Manila Treaty early next week.
The problem of Arab-Israeli relations overhangs a large part of the Middle East today. There is, of course, nothing new in this. Of the problems still awaiting a settlement it is certainly among the most difficult. I am far from despairing of a solution, but I am sure that the House understands that this is not the sort of Problem which can be settled by a stroke of the pen, or by the simple act of sitting down at a conference table even if it were possible to bring the parties to the table which, for the moment, unhappily, it is not. It will require time and patience and, above all, a restoration of peaceful conditions upon the Arab-Israeli frontier. From this, co-existence may grow into toleration and toleration into good neighbourliness.
So long as Israeli and Arab indulge in accusation and counter-accusation there can be little hope of mending this rift, from which only the Communist world can and does profit. So long as incidents continue, as they have done, bringing drastic reprisals in their wake, there can be little hope of establishing conditions of peace and toleration.
Having said that, I am glad to be able to point out that on the Israeli-Jordan border there has been a recent and considerable improvement. Israel has now returned to the Mixed Armistice Commission, which she had boycotted for the past seven months and, in addition, the number of incidents is a great deal less,

217
for about two months past. The figure, I understand, has dropped from 48 in June to nine in September and six in October.
I think the House will join with Her Majesty's Government in welcoming these signs of progress towards more settled conditions. For their part, Her Majesty's Government have made it plain that they are ready at any time to lend their good offices for talks between the parties to this unhappy dispute. We have, in fact, made persistent efforts to this end and have, perhaps, made some headway. We have not proclaimed this to the world for very good and obvious reasons. As the example of the Trieste settlement has shown, these efforts—as, indeed, most efforts at peace making—are better made out of the glare of publicity. If we are to have any hope of making progress, we must take time and work at the problem quietly.
As the House well knows, the problem of Arab refugees is inextricably intertwined with the whole problem of Arab-Israeli relations. I wish I had some encouraging news to give about those refugees, but I regret to say—I must be quite frank about this—that the problem is increasing rather than decreasing. For instance, the natural rate of increase of these refugees is about 20,000 a year and, despite the very great efforts which have been made by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, only about 9,000 have been permanently resettled over the last three years. For our part, we shall, of course, continue to contribute to the utmost of our ability and all our ingenuity to whatever improvements are possible to rehabilitate and to relieve the lot of these unhappy people. As some contribution to this effect we shall support a proposal in the United Nations to continue the mandate of the Agency for another five years.
I said earlier that I do not despair of a settlement to the Arab-Israeli dispute, but I am sure that it can only be solved
by those concerned doing two things. First, by looking a little beyond the narrow confines of their own differences. So long as this dispute continues to fill the whole horizon of the Arab and Israeli world they will find no answer, but, if both parties are prepared to regard it in a wider perspective such as the twin needs for unity within the non-Com-
218
munist world and for economic well-being in the Middle East—if they are prepared to regard it in that wider perspective—I am convinced that an answer can be found. Secondly, and equally important, is the step by step approach.
The agreement which we have just
concluded with Egypt is, I believe, an essential step in the process of rebuilding peace and stability in the Middle East. I know that Israel has been showing a certain nervousness, but there is nothing in this agreement which should fairly give rise to anxiety on the part of Israel. There is, for instance, nothing in the agreement which conflicts with our obligation under the Tripartite Declaration of 1950. With the redeployment of our Forces in the Middle East, which the agreement has made possible, we shall continue to be in a position to fulfil these obligations.
I would repeat to the House that under the agreement no weapons will be handed over to Egypt and, as to future supplies of arms, our policy will, of course, continue to be based on the Tripartite Declaration. We will supply arms for legitimate self-defence and to enable Middle East countries to play their part in the defence of the area as a whole. Nor have we any evidence that any country plans aggressive action.
After my statement in the House last week there was some criticism that in the negotiations in Cairo we did not obtain an undertaking from the Egyptian Government to remove the restrictions on Israeli cargoes passing through the Suez Canal. But, as the House knows, the restrictions on Israeli cargoes through the Canal arise from the hostility between the Arab States and Israeli and are in no way connected with or affected by the presence or absence of British Forces in the Canal Zone. The withdrawal of British Forces can have no adverse effect on this situation since it is the Egyptian authorities who have all along been in control of the terminal ports of the Canal and not the British.
Nor, I submit to the House, would it have been in anybody's interest for us to delay a settlement of our own differences with Egypt over the Suez Canal base until the problem of cargoes for Israel had been settled. We certainly could not have hoped to do any good in Arab-Israel re-

219
lations while our own relations with Egypt were so bad. Moreover, the late Government took the cargoes question to the United Nations, where it still is, and this more than ever removed it from the scope of direct Anglo-Egyptian negotiation. I would, however, like the House to see this question in its true perspective. So much attention has been concentrated on the restrictions on Israeli cargoes that the impression has got abroad of a serious disruption and reduction of traffic in general passing through the Suez Canal. In fact, this traffic stands today at an all-time high of more than 90 million tons in the year. That is nearly three times the highest figure recorded before the war—in 1937—when it stood at 36 million tons. At the same time, I would point out that this figure included a considerable volume of ships through the Canal destined for Israel. It is only those ships carrying strategic cargoes for Israel, together, of course, with all Israeli shipping whatever the cargo, that are denied passage. But as I have said, a considerable volume of traffic to Israel passes through the Canal——
Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: May I ask a question about this, because I am not clear that it is the same problem? When the right hon. Gentleman and the present Foreign Secretary were in Opposition, they joined with me in the strongest possible protest against the British permitting this to happen. What has happened to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague, now that they are in the Government, that they are repudiating all the speeches which they made in Opposition?
Mr. Nutting: First of all, as I have said, the late Government——
Mr. Crossman: I am asking about the late Opposition.
Mr. Nutting: I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point.
I was saying that, after the protests by the late Opposition, to which the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) referred, the late Government took this matter to the United Nations. That, as I have already said, made it more than ever an international issue, and not an issue which could be settled by bilateral negotiations between Britain and Egypt. It is always dangerous——
Mr. Herbert Morrison: I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that strategic, or near-strategic, traffic destined for Israel is barred by the Egyptian Government. I am not now arguing the legality or illegality of that—I will come to that later. But can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what kind of traffic goes to Israel and how much passes through the Suez Canal?
Mr. Nutting: I have not the full details beside me; no doubt they can be obtained. But the sort of cargoes which are allowed through, in non-Israeli ships, are food supplies, meat supplies, and so on—non-strategic cargoes. In other words, cargoes outside the range of such things as oil supplies which are included in strategic cargoes for this purpose.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Is it not the case that this matter had already been taken to the United Nations by the previous Government in the summer of 1951, when the present Foreign Secretary divided the House because an agreement had been made with Egypt without settling the problem?
Mr. Nutting: The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt referring to a remark made by my right hon. Friend when in the Opposition in the context of the debate on the release of sterling balances to Egypt. That, I think, is the occasion to which he is referring. On that occasion my right hon. Friend said:
"… if these arrangements—and this I give to the Government—were part of a wider agreement which resulted in the satisfactory settlement of a number of our differences with Egypt the position would be completely different, and I should not now be standing here making this complaint."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March. 1951; Vol. 485, c. 2340.]
That is precisely the agreement which we have now obtained with Egypt, the settlement of wider differences.
Mr. Jay: Will not the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? Was not the matter then already before the United Nations?
Mr. Nutting: I have answered the right hon. Gentleman's question—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have told the right hon. Gentleman more, I have told him precisely the words used by my right hon. Friend when in opposition, and I have told him the context in which they were

221
used. I think that that completely answers the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman.
It is always dangerous to prophesy, particularly in international affairs, but I hope that the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement will make it easier to solve these other and broader questions. Certainly, a solution of any problem in the Middle East areas will be easier if we can secure some improvement in Arab-Israeli relations. So long as our relations with the Arabs were poisoned by the Egyptian dispute, our influence could hardly have been weaker, but all the reports which we have received from the Middle East since the heads of agreement were concluded last July agree that far from it being reduced, British prestige has been very considerably raised.
The House will have seen, I hope with pleasure, the tribute from the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri Said, an old and tried friend of this country, which was quoted in last Sunday's Press, in which he is reported to have said that the settlement with Egypt had improved the political atmosphere throughout the Middle East. I should like here to pay tribute to the extent to which our relations with Iraq have remained stable throughout this troubled period.
I will not weary the House by repeating the detailed statement which I made about the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement last week, or the debate of last July, but I would draw attention to two important facts. As right hon. Gentlemen opposite no doubt will recall, until the present régime in Egypt came to power, no Egyptian Government had been prepared to negotiate with us upon a reasonable basis. For one thing, all previous Egyptian Governments insisted upon our recognising their right to sovereignty over the Sudan as a pre-condition of any negotiation. This, it will be remembered, was the rock on which the Bevin-Sidky agreement foundered in 1946. By dropping this precondition the present Egyptian régime opened up the possibility for negotiation.
Another point to which I would draw attention is that the conclusion of this agreement marks the first occasion upon which a post-war Egyptian Government have recognised that Egypt cannot be a neutral onlooker in a conflict involving Turkey. When we take into account the fact that Turkey is an
222
important member of N.A.T.O., that she is, in fact, N.A.T.O.'s right flank, the implications of this step are obvious and significant.
It has been suggested in some quarters that had Her Majesty's Government not hesitated, they could have got better terms from Egypt 18 months ago. This, of course, is quite wrong. In fact, by exercising patience we have been able to get the inclusion of Turkey in the reactivation clause. Had we rushed to clinch the agreement earlier, we should not have got Turkey included, which would have meant an agreement of a far more limited scope than the one we have obtained.
Apart from this, the agreement gives us all we require in the way of workshop repair facilities for our forces in the Middle East, storage of war reserves, transit rights and servicing for the Royal Air Force. Another thing which we have
gained from the exercise of a little patience is a reduction of our commitments in respect of the maintenance of the base. The Egyptians have undertaken responsibility for the security of all the base and for the maintenance of about half of the installations against the eventuality of reactivation. This joint enterprise will, I hope, be as valuable and fruitful politically as practical and useful economically. We have freed our Forces from a wasteful commitment and released them for more useful tasks elsewhere. At the same time we have eliminated the main source of friction between ourselves and the Arab world.
I suggest that these are decisive gains, and it is our hope that from this new beginning we shall be able to go forward in rebuilding confidence between Britain and Egypt. But, as I made crystal clear in my talks with Colonel Nasser and his colleagues, this rebuilding process depends on a number of things. One of the most important is the policy of Egypt towards the Sudan. For Egypt—or, for that matter, for ourselves—to seek to influence the Sudanese in the choice of their future constitution is not only a breach of the Sudan Agreement itself, but an act of political folly likely to boomerang upon its perpetrators.
Our view, which I repeated to the Egyptian Government, is that the Sudanese must be allowed to choose their own future in freedom without foreign

223
interference. Subject to that, we have every interest in seeing good relations between the Sudan and Egypt as between the Sudan and ourselves. There is reason to believe that the Sudanese are becoming increasingly determined to decide their own future in the interests of the Sudan rather than of any outside power. We look forward to the visit to London in a few days' time of the Sudanese Prime Minister as the guest of Her Majesty's Government. We welcome this opportunity to talk over questions of interest to both our countries and to demonstrate to Mr. Azhari our desire for friendly relations with the Sudanese Government and with Sudanese of all parties.
Another important element in the developing pattern of peace in the Middle East is the agreement reached with Saudi Arabia to submit the Buraimi dispute to arbitration. This dispute was overshadowed by the problems of Persia and Suez but it was, nevertheless of considerable importance in the context of the Middle East and it cast a shadow over the traditional friendship between us and Saudi Arabia. This agreement is, therefore, another important contribution to a better atmosphere and improved relations in the Middle East.
The Deputy Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Yusuf Yasin, is now in London and I am sure that the House will join in welcoming this distinguished representative of a friendly country. We have profited from his visit to discuss matters of common concern and he assured me yesterday of King Saud's firm resolve to get down to work over arbitration and so to remove this irritant in our relations.
I should now like to give the House a few details of the Persian Oil Agreement
which was ratified by the Shah of Persia last Friday. In reply yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe), I spoke of a consortium of oil companies which is to operate in Persia. This consortium consists of eight companies—the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company with a 40 per cent. share, the Royal Dutch Shell with 14 per cent., the Compagnie Francaise des Pétroles with 6 per cent., and five United States oil companies each with 8 per cent.
224
All these companies already have big interests in Middle East oil and were, therefore, in a position to contribute to a settlement of the Persian oil problem. They are the companies with a ready market for Persian oil, and the marketing of that oil was, of course, one of the problems with which we had to deal. Further, since the Persians wanted a solution on a multi-national basis as distinct from operations by a single company, it was evident that a consortium of this kind was the best arrangement.
The consortium will act as the agent of the Persian Government whose ownership of the industry is recognised in the agreement. The agreement itself contains various provisions and safeguards about day-to-day management. The consortium's tenure is for 25 years in the first instance with options to renew for three five-year periods. The Persians themselves, through the National Iranian Oil Company, will run a small oilfield and refinery, the Naft-i-Shah field, and the Kermanshah refinery for oil required for internal use. They will also handle all distribution within Persia.
The consortium companies have set up a London organisation known as "Iranian Oil Participants Limited" in which each of the eight companies hold shares on the same percentage basis as for the consortium itself; and another London organisation known as "Iranian Oil Services Limited" to handle the staffing and purchase of material for the operations in Persia. In Persia itself there will be two operating companies, one for exploration and production and the other for refining at Abadan. All the shares in these
two companies are held by Iranian Oil Participants Limited. The two London organisations have British nationality and the two operating companies have been incorporated in Holland.
Under the agreement the two operating companies in Persia have had delegated to them managerial powers. This will ensure efficient operation. Each of the two companies is to have a board of seven members, two appointed by the Persian Government and five, of whom one is to be a Persian, nominated by the consortium. The composition of both boards will, in fact, almost certainly be the same.
Compensation for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company has been obtained in two

225
ways; first, a payment of £25 million from the Persian Government spread over ten years from 1957; and, secondly, payments totalling £214 million from the other seven companies for the 60 per cent. share in the consortium which they have taken up.
Mr. Crossman: Will the Minister tell us what the value of Anglo-Iranian was? I gather that we are to get £25 million from the Persians in exchange. That is the only thing the Persians will pay—£25 million for the total value of the refinery. Apart from that, the others are to buy us out. We cannot get compensation from an American company for the fact that the Persians are taking the oil. That is not compensation.
Mr. Nutting: I want to get this clear. The £214 million which Anglo-Iranian will receive from the other companies, including the Americans, is a payment for the 60 per cent. share which those companies will have in the operations. The £25 million which is to be paid by the Persian Government is a different matter altogether. That figure was arrived at as a result of a calculation of the claims and counter-claims—the claims of A.I.O.C. against the Persians and the counter-claims of Persia against us for their loss of revenue during the three years of what was called the "blockade" of Persian oil. That figure of £25 million results from the offset of the claims and counter-claims one against the other.
Mr. Crossman: So it would be misleading to say that more than £25 million was being paid in compensation. The fact is that the other companies are buying us out for certain interests. Therefore, it would be true to say that we get £25 million compensation finally and otherwise we are being bought out of our monopoly by American oil companies.
Mr. Nutting: The hon. Gentleman has got this wrong. He keeps on talking about the Persians paying us £25 million for the Abadan Refinery. I have explained how the figure was arrived at. It is not a payment for the Abadan refinery because, indeed, the consortium of operating companies engaged in the refining of oil will be operating the refinery.
Mr. Crossman: Will the consortium own the refinery?
Mr. Nutting: The compensation was necessary as a result of the slate-cleaning exercise that I have described to the hon. Gentleman, but I repeat that it is not payment for the Abadan refinery.
Mr. Crossman: Who owns the refinery?
Mr. Nutting: Of these payments, £32·4 million is to be paid to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in three equal instalments over 12 months, starting from when oil exports from Persia are resumed. That is how a beginning has been made in the payment of the £214 million. The balance of about £182 million will be paid to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in the shape of a payment of 10 cents on each barrel of crude oil exported.
Production arrangements are regulated under the agreement by a contract with the consortium. This lays down that the consortium shall produce and sell enough oil to give Persia an income in the third year of production of about £79 million. The financial arrangements will give Persia and the consortium a 50/50 profit-sharing deal in accordance with the system now common in Middle East oil producing countries.
Thus we have an arrangement which should contribute to the prosperity of all parties and not least to the people of Persia themselves. We have, I believe, settled a dispute of long standing which had impaired British and Persian interests and was another dangerous cause of instability in the whole Middle East, and we have restored our relations with Persia to their traditional basis of friendship and co-operation.
Mr. Hugh Dalton: Is it the case that the consortium now owns the Abadan refinery?
Mr. Nutting: No, the National Iranian Oil Co. will own it but the consortium will operate it for 25 years with an option to renew for five-yearly intervals for another 15 years.
Mr. Crossman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Nutting: I have given the House a very full description of the picture which the Middle East presents today. There is still a lot of work to be done if we are to restore peace and build up unity and stability throughout the whole area. We

227
and our partners will continue our efforts to this end. The Arab-Israel dispute is still the main source of weakness and division, but there are other elements of growing strength. For instance, there is the new Turkish-Pakistan defence agreement. This is a notable asset to the defence and security of the Middle East.
However, there is an obvious need for further progress and co-ordination in every field. With our agreements old and new, we have made, I believe, a good beginning in the process of progressive reconciliation of disputes. We must now develop these achievements in the positive direction of promoting unity, strength and well-being throughout the Middle East. I ask the House to help us in these further great and challenging tasks.
4.13 p.m.
Mr. Herbert Morrison: We are obliged to the Minister of State for the exposition which he has given of the various matters with which he has dealt. Perhaps the exposition is not complete in all detail, and no doubt questions will be asked during the debate which I am sure the Secretary of State will be happy to answer in complete detail.
It will, I think, be the wish of the House generally that I should extend our congratulations to the Minister of State upon his promotion—[An HON. MEMBER: "Lucky."] One of my hon. Friends says that he is a lucky man, but let us wait and see, because the position which he holds is not always a lucky one to be in. At any rate, we wish him every success in the greater responsibilities which have now fallen to him.
I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that relations between the Arab States and Israel dominate the Middle Eastern scene as the biggest single item. It will, consequently, be necessary for me to refer at some length to that matter. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government are doing, and will do, all that they can, but that little or nothing is possible today. I am sorry to hear that expression of opinion.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that one of the first necessities is peace on the borders between Israel and the surrounding Arab States, but that is also bound up with the making of a peace between Israel and the Arab States. I
228
am glad to hear that the incidents on the Israel-Jordan border have diminished. I hope that that may continue to be the case. Of course, the period with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt is a short one. Therefore, one must not be too sure about it, but I hope very much that the improvement to which he referred is likely to be permanent.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there have been no threats from Egypt against Israel, but I am afraid that that is not true. I have a number before me, and I will quote one. On 2nd July, 1954, the Egyptian Minister for National Guidance, of whom we hear a good deal from time to time—I suppose he is the Minister of Information—in the course of a public statement in Beirut, which was subsequently reported over the Cairo radio, declared that:
"As for the problem of Palestine, that is a problem which can be solved only by force. That force will not be achieved until the Suez Canal is freed. The Egyptian Army is unable to fight as long as the British Army separates it from its bases. The United States and Britain are withholding arms from Egypt…"
I gather that there is now a different situation.
"… and are preventing Belgium from selling her arms. … They know that with the freeing of our economic and military forces an end will be put to foreign occupation throughout the Middle East."
I take it that that includes Jewish occupation of Israel. That does not seem to fit in with the Minister of State's claim that no threats have been made; and yet this is only one of the threats to be found on the record.
I agree with him entirely about the Sudan and how desirable it is that Egypt should cease to make objectionable or improper interventions in the internal affairs of that country which has now got its freedom, and which, by the way, owes a lot, and will continue to owe a lot, to past competent British administration. It is a curious thing that although the Foreign Office is not, strictly speaking, an administrative department—it is a diplomatic department—its administration of the Sudan was very well done; it was, in fact, a great administrative job. That is generally accepted in all parts of the House.
Now, as to Persia, on the information given by the Minister of State in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for

229
Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) it would appear that the Persians, who earlier said that they were to get the refineries and installations for nothing—which we were resisting because we demanded compensation—have now got them for nothing, and, moreover, are to have a revenue of about £79 million per year as well, which will, no doubt, include the rent payable in respect of the use of the refineries.
In respect of Persia—and Egypt as well—the Government have committed a very great reversal from the policy for which hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke when they were in Opposition. Without committing the Opposition to the view that the oil agreement with Persia is fully satisfactory—I am not sure that it is; but it may well be that it was the best which could be obtained in the circumstances—it is nevertheless to the good, and we share this view with the Government, that some amicable arrangement has been reached which will enable the oil to flow again and will bring to an end a situation between us and Persia which was undesirable.
However, what has been said and what has happened amply justifies the policy in respect of Persia which was pursued by the Labour Government in 1951. The view we took was that if it was a question of protecting British life and limb we would act and, if necessary, act by military force. We did not wish, however, to commit ourselves to the view that we would use military force for the protection of the property of a company, important though that property was, and however much we objected to the methods of the Persian Government and the policy that it pursued. We were pressed by the Opposition—and I could give quotations—clearly in the direction of making use of military force for that purpose.
Frankly, it was a difficult question to answer, because if we had said "No," we should have made the Persians feel more comfortable, when I did not want to do so, and, if we had said "Yes," and had not meant it, we could have been in trouble. We were determined to protect British lives, and we made preparations to that end, but, happily, it did not prove to be necessary. We were not prepared to commit ourselves to warlike operations for the protection of the property.
230
I must say that Dr. Mossadeq was a very difficult gentleman to deal with. Negotiating with equals, both of whom are really negotiating, is a nice occupation, even if sometimes difficult; negotiating with equals, both of whom mean business and want to come to a settlement, even if the wrong settlement, is tolerable; but negotiating with a man who is not only reckless about coming to any settlement, but who, in the process of the discussions, is perfectly willing to do damage and injury to his own people and his own country, is a bit rough. It is like a war in which one side is ready to die, and the other side is in no hurry to die. I do not know whether we can call that fair fighting or not, but that was the case with Dr. Mossadeq, who was a very difficult gentleman to deal with.
Notwithstanding the blandishments and the great friendship extended to him—which was very genuine—by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes)—and I am not sure that he would agree with everything I have said about his friend Dr. Mossadeq, with whom he had careful and cordial exchanges, and who really did his best—that is how it was. There is no doubt whatever that that was the attitude of the Opposition, and, if necessary, examples could be quoted, but I do not want to bother the House with a lot of quotations. [An HON. MEMBER: "Get it on the record."] It is on the record; they are all to be found in Volume 489 of HANSARD.
We also had to take into account certain considerations, because it is all very well to be light-hearted about a warlike manner in trying to settle a dispute about property. To be quite frank with the House, we did not enjoy the wholehearted support of the United States of America in the Persian matter. I am not wishing to raise controversy, but simply stating it as a fact, which had to be taken into account as to the degree to which we went in the arguments with or pressure upon Persia. We ran a real risk, or we should have run a real risk, of being pulled up by the United Nations.
Evidence to that end is provided by the fact that we went to the International Court, which gave a decision in our favour. But, instead of the United Nations clearly pronouncing as a result of that decision, they were rather evasive

231
about it, which indicated that they wanted to side-step the issue and that we should not have had much sympathy there. As was admitted by the Conservative Opposition at the time, our action would have involved the right of the U.S.S.R. to invade Northern Persia, which certainly would have been a business that would not have been welcome, and that might—I only say might—have involved a risk of war.
Notwithstanding all this, the Conservative Government continued the Labour Government's policy of patience and care, taking every opportunity, as time went along, to try to reach a settlement, which was exactly what we were proposing to do and were doing. Indeed, in the circumstances, short of warlike operations, it was the only thing to do. It is no good the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs sitting over there looking very happy with himself. It is a nice feeling, and I do not want to depreciate it too much, but, after all, this has not been a quick operation. The Government have been in office for about three years, and, therefore, they have been patient. It has been slow motion, moving with great care and circumspection as and when they had any opportunity of moving at all.
Now, Dr. Mossadeq has gone somewhere else, but the Government did not move him. [Interruption.] Someone says, "So has the Labour Government." It is a fair observation, but it has nothing to do with the case, any more than it will have anything to do with the case when this Government meet their inevitable defeat at the next General Election. Anyhow, Dr. Mossadeq has gone, and that was an enormous improvement in the situation. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary would not boast that he liquidated Dr. Mossadeq.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Anthony Eden): No.
Mr. Morrison: The fact is that the Labour Government's policy of patience, of taking their opportunities to secure an improvement when they could and come to effective negotiations, which was our policy, is exactly the policy which this Government has followed. All the blether and bluster of the Conservative Party in Opposition, when they talked about using strong-arm methods, was abandoned, and
232
very rightly. I congratulate the Government to the extent that agreement has come about from a successful application of the policy of the Labour Party.
The story of Egypt is much the same. Here, again, the present Prime Minister, very fiercely, and the present Foreign Secretary, a little less fiercely, but well on the road, criticised us in this matter. I remember when they used to sit over here in a terrible state, and there was a moment when there was a little danger of their being supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman).
Mr. Crossman: With great respect to my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, some of us were consistent throughout these affairs. Sometimes we had the Tories and sometimes our own Front Bench on our side, but we were always on the same side.
Mr. Morrison: I should not wish to provoke my hon. Friend. I only say that the impression upon the House—and I was Leader of the House during part of the time and Foreign Secretary during another part of the time—might have been that the Government had grave apprehensions that they could have been defeated on this issue of Egypt week after week. It was a real possibility. If I recall these unhappy and worrying days, surely that is a legitimate thing to do; but I was not seeking to attack my hon. Friend. He knows that attacks by one Labour Member upon another are not allowed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Prime Minister has enough trouble on his own hands. Let the Prime Minister go out and find his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse), then he will be busy.
The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I will shake hands with my right hon. and gallant Friend at any time.
Mr. Morrison: Very wisely and kindly, I think, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not there to shake hands with.
The story of Egypt is much the same. The Egyptian Government has also been difficult like the Mossadeq Persian Government was. The Egyptian Government also unilaterally repudiated agreements, as did the Persian Government, though in the case of Egypt it was a treaty—the

233
Treaty of 1936—and, in both cases, the treaty in Egypt and the agreement in Persia were freely arrived at.
My late colleague, Ernest Bevin, sought to reach an amicable agreement of a far-reaching character and was attacked at the time by the Conservative Opposition for so doing. We were accused, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition reminded the House earlier on another debate, of a policy of scuttle. Well, the anti-scuttlers have now scuttled. It was a pity that the Egyptian Government did not reach agreement at that time. I thought, and I still think, that the proposal which I put forward on behalf of the Labour Government, whereby the British would have gone out as such, and the base would have ceased to be British and would have become an international base for collective security in the Middle East in which Egypt would have become an absolutely equal partner, was the best solution. It was a better one than this. I think both sides of the House agreed on that, and it was supported by the then Opposition. I was grateful for their support.
It would have been better for Egypt, for Egypt's security and for general international security in the Middle East. However, they would not have it, and the Government had to do something radical with a view to British withdrawal, subject to such conditions as they could get. Therefore, I am not, in the circumstances, complaining fundamentally about the Government's decision. Neither are my hon. Friends on this side of the House. Now the present Government have accepted the policy of withdrawal, subject to certain conditions, and have abandoned the Treaty of 1936. In all the circumstances, we are disposed to accept the view that the decision could not, in principle, be avoided.
How the Prime Minister bases it on the development of the atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb I do not know. We regard that more as an excuse than as a defence, especially as, on the same day, there was an announcement about Cyprus which was clumsy politically and made a lot of trouble. It was very badly handled. Anyway, Cyprus was regarded as a military feature of some strength and possibly as a partial alternative to Egypt.
If the Suez Canal was no longer any good because of the atom bomb and the
234
hydrogen bomb, I should not have thought that Cyprus was much better. The Prime Minister fell back on the atom business as an excuse in an awkward situation. He had to find a position distinct from that which he took in Opposition—something new—and that was the only thing he could think of; so he thought of it and produced it.
Cyprus cannot be a military base of importance. It can be useful in secondary ways. No doubt it was desirable that it should be used. I do not wish to develop this point, because it is not strictly within the bounds of the debate, but I would urge the Government to remember, in connection with Cyprus, that it is important to be a little more reasonable, courteous and co-operative in discussing these problems with people who, undoubtedly, have deep feelings. The Government did a lot of harm by the announcement to which I have referred.
There are two serious points which arise out of the agreement with Egypt which have not been satisfactorily dealt with. One concerns the water traffic through the Suez Canal. Article 8 of the agreement we reached with Egypt says that the two contracting Governments
"uphold the Convention guaranteeing the freedom of navigation of the Canal signed at Constantinople on the 29th of October, 1888."
There is no equivocation about that agreement. It is clear that any traffic is permitted to pass, in peace or war. It really is too bad that the Minister of State and the Foreign Secretary should not categorically say that Egypt is breaking the agreement and breaking international law. I take it that they agree with that.
Sir A. Eden: We said that at the last meeting of the United Nations. We were absolutely firm. There was a unanimous resolution.
Mr. Morrison: That is satisfactory.
The question arises, what is to be done about it? If Egypt is interfering with Israeli traffic of a certain kind—"strategic traffic" is a very wide term—whether it is carried in Israeli ships or in any other ships including British ships, if Egypt is forbidding Israeli ships altogether—if that is admitted and if it is tolerated—then Egypt is free to do that to the shipping of anybody else, including us. It is a really serious state of affairs.

235
It is not only Israeli shipping that is involved. It could be British shipping or the shipping of other countries, particularly if certain classes of goods are destined for Israeli ports.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made a proposal when the Labour Government was in office about how to deal with this matter. I did not accept his proposal at the time, so I have no right to press it upon him now. On 19th June, 1951, the present Foreign Secretary asked me
"to consider the suggestion whether, if our international rights are still not met after these two years, it would not be worthy of consideration to send one of our tankers to the Suez Canal under, if possible, allied, but at any rate, effective, escort."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 242.]
It is not two years now, but five years or more. It appears to us that this action of Egypt's is a breach of the 1888 Convention—I think that is agreed on both sides of the House—and that it is unlawful as to the shipping of Israel, Britain and other countries. I understand that that view has been upheld by the United Nations. One of the sad things about this is that the United Nations itself is being set aside.
There is the question of arms for Egypt and for other Arab States. We can follow the desire of Her Majesty's Government and the United States of America that the Arab States should be ready to defend themselves against possible totalitarian aggression. I want them to be able and willing to do so, and I appreciate and affirm the very great importance of friendly relations between us and the Arab States. If I appear to be critical of their policy it is not in any way that I do not wish us to be friendly with them. I realise how important that is. I want them to be ready to defend themselves against possible totalitarian aggression, if they are willing to collaborate to that end. We wish for friendship with them.
It has to be faced that for five or six years there has been an armistice between the Arab States and Israel which, unhappily, the Arab States have refused so far to convert into a peace. I have already referred to the threats against Israel which are making that country nervous. Much has been said about friendship between this country and various Arab States, and rightly so. Let
236
us not underestimate that Israel is a distinctly friendly country as well. I have been there twice, once in 1935 and once in Whitsun this year. I am enormously impressed with Israel as a great, progressive, democratic experiment. The extraordinary thing is that their processes of thinking are very much like our own, which is a comfort in these days.
They learned a lot, despite all the trouble between some of them and us under the British mandatory Government. They have learned a lot about government from the British mandatory Government, and they will admit it. There is, therefore, a friendly feeling on the part of Israel towards this country which we should not underestimate. They are in favour of almost any form of co-operation with this country for the peace of the world and for the general improvement of conditions, not only in Israel but in the Middle East as well, if they are permitted so to co-operate.
I regard Israel as a great democratic experiment. It has a mixed economy. It is an experiment worthy of great respect and admiration. She has made much economic progress. She can make more and I believe that she will make more. It would be a great loss to the world and an enormous loss to the Middle East if this demonstration were to fail—this demonstration that out of backward, unnourished and poor land can evolve a prosperous countryside and out of nothing can emerge factories and undertakings. This is, indeed, what needs doing in the Middle East as a whole. Israel is anxious to make her contribution by example and, if it were acceptable, otherwise, too.
Israel is bound to be apprehensive about the supply of arms to the Arab States and about what arms are to be left in Egypt, but we have been given an assurance this afternoon that no arms are to be handed over to the Egyptians.
Mr. Nutting: Under the agreement.
Mr. Morrison: Yes. There may be sales of arms, as there are to Iraq. I want to put it to the Government that if our sales of arms to the four surrounding Arab countries, and, indeed, to others, too, together with gifts or sales from the United States, are to put Israel at a distinct military disadvantage, then, not-

237
withstanding the proved fighting capacity of Israel, that country may be in real military danger.
The United States have been rather forthcoming in this matter of arms for the Arab States; they have picked up a British tradition which no doubt they remember from earlier times. It is good that they are capable of changing their policy for good as well as for otherwise. If the total military equipment and the quality of the military equipment of these surrounding Arab States is to be substantially greater than that of Israel, then Israel would be in great danger and she would need more than the equipment of one country, so to speak, if she were to defend herself.
But what a tragedy it is that all this military business should be going on. What a pity it is that they cannot devote their time to economic programmes and development. We ought to be told in the Secretary of State's reply to the debate what arms are to be made available to the Arab States by the United Kingdom and the United States as compared with the arms made available to Israel.
I agree that in part it will depend on how much they are prepared to buy, but I want to know what is be available for I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree with me—I have always liked his sympathetic interest in what was formerly Palestine and is now Israel—that it would be a great loss to the world if anything went wrong there, with they themselves having no aggressive ambitions towards anybody else.
Is it sufficiently realised that the vigour and democratic health of a country does not depend on arms alone but depends also upon economic health and upon social security, which in my judgment is an important factor in the vigour and the military capacity of any country? The great need of the Middle East is for economic development and progress and improvement of the conditions of life. These will have political, economic and if necessary military consequences not a bit less important than the supply of arms.
The Minister of State referred to the three-Power Declaration. That Declaration was dated 25th May, 1950, so that the Labour Government were involved. It is good as far as it goes, but it does not fully meet the situation consequent
238
upon our new agreement with Egypt. The Declaration provides that
"The three Governments, should they find that any of these States was preparing to violate frontiers or armistice lines, would, consistently with their obligations as Members of the United Nations, immediately take action, both within and outside the United Nations, to prevent such violation."
I am not quite sure what all this means.
Sir A. Eden: They are the right hon. Gentleman's words.
Mr. Morrison: I said it was 1950; it was the best we could get. This agreement about the Suez Canal did not then exist, which makes a difference. We were there. We were in a better position to act. We shall not now be in a position immediately to act if an aggression takes place. I admit that the words of the Declaration are our words, but they are vague and in the new circumstances, with the British out of the Canal base for effective purposes, it seems to me that the situation is made much more dangerous. As against this vague declaration, coupled with British evacuation of the Canal Zone, there are specific military guarantees against external aggression on our part in respect of Iraq and Jordan. The two cases are, therefore, not parallel and there is a further danger.
What is needed is an Arab-Israel peace. The War of Independence was stopped at the request of the United Nations, in which the United Kingdom and the United States took a prominent part. Hostilities ceased and an armistice was made at a time when Israel was achieving a considerable degree of military success; but she is a good United Nations country and a good friend of ours and of the United States, and she accepted it. The two sides sat around a table. Temporary borders of occupation were settled. It is the case, however, contrary to all the principles of the United Nations to which all these countries belong, that after five or six years the armistice goes on, there is no peace and there are incidents. Presumably the active state of war has ended in the ordinary meaning of the term, but the present situation is absurd and anomalous.
I saw a case where the cottages of a farm are in Jordan and the farmland is in Israel; and the farm cannot be operated because of this separation. I saw another case where there had been demilitarisation or neutralisation of many

239
acres of land. It is good land. The Israelis have tried to persuade the Arabs to talk, with a view to reaching an agreement whereby it could be divided and the produce divided between the two countries. It is such a tragedy that all this should be taking place. Anything that we can do, should be done. We have a duty to try very hard; so have the United States and the United Nations, in view of our pressure five or six years ago.
In some ways there is something approaching a state of war, and Israel is in a condition of near-siege. If she had not the Mediterranean on one side, even though she is cut off from the Suez Canal, she would be in great difficulty. There is an economic boycott and a blockade of traffic on the Suez Canal. Israel has asked for negotiations She has offered a non-aggression pact.
It is interesting that this debate should take place on 2nd November, which is the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration of 2nd November, 1917. This is the anniversary of our Declaration, which was supported by the United States, for a Jewish home in Palestine. As I say, it has been a great and an inspiring thing.
Reference has been made to the refugees. For those people, I agree, it is a tragic and terrible experience, but there are many thousands of Arabs living in Israel in peace and security, enjoying political, social and economic rights, and with a better standard of life than that of their former countrymen elsewhere. Nevertheless, the situation should be handled with a view to international settlement. There was a state of war. The Arabs left voluntarily. I am glad that Israel has generously released a substantial amount of frozen money, but this business of the refugees ought to be settled at a peace conference.
Major H. Legge-Bourke: I think that the right hon. Gentleman said just now that the Arabs voluntarily left Palestine to be refugees. Surely he knows that that is a monstrous inaccuracy.
Mr. Morrison: I think it is generally true. I would not say true in every case, but when the war broke out many of them left, as do many people in similar circumstances. Therefore, it is a bit unjust to claim that the problem is one of
240
Israeli creation. There are large numbers of Arabs still living in Israel in happy conditions. They have their own members of Parliament, and their own town councillors, too, as I saw at Nazareth.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: On the question of responsibility for the original creation of the problem, is it not the case that, at the beginning, many left, not voluntarily but persuaded by the inducements of the Arab States that, if they left, they would be sent back?
Mr. Morrison: My recollection is that such statements were made.
Major Legge-Bourke: Remember Deir Yassin.
Mr. Morrison: I have no doubt that many unpleasant things can be remembered—the whole business is unpleasant—but I think that, with the co-operation of the United Nations, a more definite effort should be made by the Arab States to settle these people—just as the Israelis have settled people of all sorts and qualities, coming from all over the world, into Israel—instead of letting them merely exist, as it were, on sufferance, on the aid, generous as it is, given by the United Nations. They should be settled on the land; heaven knows, there is plenty of land on which they could be settled.
What is needed is economic co-operation between Israel and the surrounding Arab States. Much more water could be obtained for all the countries concerned as a result of co-operation. Much more electricity could be obtained. A power station is supposed to be in course of construction on the Jordan River which could serve Jordan as well as Israel. With co-operation, manufactured goods can be bought and exchanged, and there is room for the sale of agricultural produce grown in the Arab countries. Were peace established and co-operation forthcoming the whole economic situation could be improved.
Looking at the Middle East generally, there is great need, and room, for agricultural and general economic development in the countries concerned. The Middle East is an area of riches and poverty and that, itself, is a great social danger. There are all the raw materials and elements of Communism, and one of these days something may happen. These extreme riches

241
and poverty should be dealt with. The masses need a better standard of life. Above all, it would be a fine thing if they had a labour movement and a trade union movement.
In all these respects it is important that the Western countries should assist. Great developments and great advances are possible. I should like to see a Middle East economic and social board carrying out a survey, in conjunction with the Middle Eastern Governments—all of them—to see how conditions could be improved and economic developments take place. I think that the very great profits which are going into Middle Eastern countries from the oil undertakings might, in greater part, be used for the economic and social development of this part of the world.
Such economic development and stimulation in the Middle East, with higher standards of education and higher standards of social security would be a real contribution not only to social advancement but to the development of a real democracy, security and peace in this vital and important part of the world.
4.55 p.m.
Professor Sir Douglas Savory: I am sure that the House listened with sympathy when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) spoke of the necessity, under the Constantinople Agreement of 1888, of keeping open the Suez Canal. We felt sympathy when he spoke of the perils to which Israel is at present being subjected, and we sympathised even more with him when he described the present deplorable condition of the refugees.
With regard to Egypt, I should like to make a personal confession. My earliest recollection of that country is a very sad one. Evening after evening when I came home I asked my father, "What news is there of General Gordon?" When the terrible news arrived that Sir Garnett Wolseley's expedition had arrived two days late and that Gordon had been murdered, the blow which struck me then, as a small boy, is one that I shall always remember. From that time forward, I have always taken the very keenest interest in Egypt. I have listened to all these debates with great attention. I feel that the defect in so many of our discus-
242
sions is that we ignore the historical background of these problems.
I feel sure that the House will agree that the greatest strategist of the last century was Napoleon. We can learn a great lesson from his invasion of Egypt. On his way to that country he was shrewd enough to seize Malta from the Knights of St. John. He landed successfully in Alexandria, defeated the Egyptians at the Battle of the Pyramids and became master of Cairo and of Alexandria. He might have remained there had it not been for Nelson's glorious victory at the Battle of Aboukir Bay, at which the French fleet was destroyed and the French army's retreat cut off. Sir Ralph Abercrombie and his 15,000 gallant British troops then landed, completely defeated the French and our forces, themselves, occupied Cairo and Alexandria.
We were there for two years, and a great mistake was made by our withdrawal. Would it be believed that within two months of our abandoning Cairo, war was to break out again, the Treaty of Amiens overthrown, and we had lost for ever that strategic position we had occupied? Why did we not listen to the man on the spot? Why do we always ignore our distinguished representatives in foreign countries? Major Misset insisted over and over again that we should remain with the consent and the desire of the whole of the population. But no, we withdrew, and we handed over the country to that bloodthirsty tyrant, Mohammed Ali. Many people think that this founder of the Egyptian dynasty was an Egyptian. He was not an Egyptian. He was not even a Turk. He was simply an Albanian adventurer, and he is the ancestor of all the successors who followed him on the throne of Egypt.
To show the nature of this tyrant, many of us have heard of the tea party in the Citadel, where Mohammed Ali invited all the Mamelukes, that is to say the Turkish Governors, and every one with one exception was murdered. I was shown in the Citadel the amazing parapet over which one of these Mamelukes on his horse is said to have jumped. I think it is really a fairy tale. I believe he was sick in bed at the time. Anyway, he was the only one who escaped. That is the first opportunity that we lost.

243
The second opportunity that we lost was at the time of Ismail, the grandson of Mohammed, who, after many years of extravagance, piled up debt after debt, borrowed money which he could never repay, at 12½ per cent., and finally, in order to get further funds, demanded that he should be placed under joint control of Great Britain—Major Baring was our representative—and M. de Blignières that of France. A rebellion broke out, the famous rebellion of Arabi Pasha against Taufiq, the successor of Ismail, and even Mr. Gladstone's Government, so disinclined to take any action at the time, were obliged to send the fleet to Alexandria and bombard it, and after the great battle of Tel-el-Kebir were forced to pursue the victory and once more occupy Cairo and Alexandria There again we should have remained. It was the desire of all the inhabitants, but once more we lost the chance of incorporating, with the will of the people, Egypt in the British Empire.
Again, in 1914 Turkey declared war upon us, and the Khedive of that period, Abbas II, was in Constantinople in league with the Turks. It was decided that he should be deposed. There again, the fundamental error was made of proclaiming a protectorate, which in international law is extremely doubtful, and we put on the throne the uncle of Abbas II who, harmless old gentleman, remained there till his death. That was the opportunity once more that was lost, not of proclaiming a protectorate, but of incorporating Egypt with the British Empire. Instead of that, we went even further. When Fuad I came to the throne, we actually gave him the title of King, in spite of all his endless intrigues. and there again a very great mistake was made.
With regard to the treaty made in 1936, how well I remember that the man who carried out all the negotiations for that treaty, Nahas Pasha, was received when he returned to Cairo with acclamation. British troops were cheered in Cairo and in Alexandria as well. In fact, the treaty was so popular that all the parties wanted to have a hand in signing it. When we signed that treaty it was understood that it was a treaty of alliance. It was a treaty which, in time of war, would have called upon Egypt to play her part.
244
That is the interpretation put upon it by our great representative, Sir Miles Lampson, who was 13 years in Cairo as High Commissioner and afterwards as ambassador, the present Lord Killearn. He thought at the time that the Egyptians, instead of remaining neutral when the war broke out in 1939, would have co-operated in every possible way. In fact, they did not declare war until it was quite certain that all danger from Italy had ceased, not until February, 1945, when eventually they made up their minds that the time had come to declare war upon the enemy.
What happened then? We incurred a debt of £400 million sterling for goods that had been supplied to us for our aid in defending Egypt from aggression. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer did his utmost to get it scaled down, and I should be glad if the Foreign Secretary would tell us something more about this £400 million. My belief is that it has been doled out at the rate of about £15 million every year to the Egyptians.
Now we come once more to this fresh agreement which is before us today. We heard a good deal of discussion last year about the 1953 Convention relating to the Sudan, and the Foreign Secretary came here on two occasions at least and denounced the way in which that agreement was being carried out by the Egyptians. Now we have the present treaty, and I should like to ask some questions about it.
First of all, we have made an agreement with certain people, and I want to know whether they are really in a position to "deliver the goods." At the present moment Egypt is in a state of unrest. The Muslim League seems to have enormous influence. It may be suppressed for the moment, but again and again we have seen the Muslim League being restored and resuscitated. I want to ask whether this government, this republican government established by a coup d'état, is in a position to fulfil the terms of this treaty. On what do they rest? When the Egyptian Prime Minister was asked about the future constitution and whether he was going to have an election he said, "No, we are going to have a selection." It sounds rather like the recent election in Eastern Germany. Are they in a position to "deliver the goods?"

245
The British Government made a treaty with the Sinn Feiners in 1921. It was introduced here with prophecies of peace. What happened? Within a very few months, the whole of the year 1922 saw a state of civil war between the regulars and the irregulars. The whole of Southern Ireland was devastated, and part of the capital, including the Four Courts, the palace
of justice, was occupied by the rebels. That Government were not even able to control the capital. They could not "deliver the goods."
We have been told again and again that we cannot hold our position in Egypt because the population is hostile. I have been talking with people who have come back from the Canal Zone and who deny this. They say that the population is not hostile, and would be delighted to cooperate with us if it were not intimidated. The population was said to be hostile when the Treaty Ports were handed over to Southern Ireland. I know what I am talking about. Berehaven, where the whole population, from generation to generation—father and son—had served in the British Navy, was loyal to a man. At Queenstown. also, there was consternation when the Union Jack was hauled down, and I have it from an eye witness that at the forts on Lough Swilly, when the Union Jack was hauled down and the Sinn Fein flag was hoisted, the whole population was in tears. Yet I had to write four letters to "The Times" to contest the absurdity of the statement that the Treaty Ports could not be held because the population was hostile.
I now come to my third point, and I speak here with very great diffidence, because I wish to quote from my leader, the Prime Minister, a few sentences which very deeply moved me when I heard them in 1946. I am very glad that he is here—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—because I informed him that I would make this quotation. On 24th May, 1946, he said:
"Let us try to foresee what will happen if tension grows at any time in future and an emergency arises.… We shall then be in dispute with some other Great Power … the moment will come when the military advisers will say, 'We ought to reoccupy the military installations, camps and airfields in the Canal zone. We ought immediately to move in from our bases to the East or to the West of Egypt.' What might be the behaviour of the Egyptian Government at such a juncture? No doubt we shall be told that there would be a treaty
246
of alliance, but I cannot feel that, under such dire pressures, it would be of any avail. The Great Power with whom we shall be in dispute would, of course, say to the Egyptian Government: 'We should regard any movement into the Canal zone of British forces as an unfriendly act.' Can anyone suppose that the Egyptian Government, confronted with this situation and not desiring anyhow to have British troops or Air Forces in the Canal zone, will not refuse permission for us to reenter? … They will say, 'We do not agree that a state of emergency has arisen. We do not agree that a state of international emergency'—to quote the words of the Treaty of Alliance—'has arisen, and we deny your right to decide upon the fact contrary to us.' If such an attitude were adopted, and there were no British personnel in the Canal zone, the Egyptians … would be able to put out of action all the installations, radar equipment, airfields and so on, long before we could get there. … Can anyone imagine the British Government in such a situation, when the dread issue of peace or war in a renewed world struggle may be hanging in the balance, forcing the issue, whether Egypt agreed or not?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 774.]
I apologise for that quotation. When I heard this speech, it made a very great impression upon me. I am sure that the Prime Minister has some very impressive reasons for taking a different point of view today, and I should very much like to hear them.
I am very reluctant to oppose this treaty, but I am encouraged by the thought that I was one of the few Members who voted against the Yalta Agreement. Can anyone say that we were not right to vote against it, when we look at the world and especially at Asia today? I hate to criticise any action of my own party, but when it is a question of conscience and I feel as strongly as I do upon this question, "I can do no other." I feel sure that the House will sympathise with me in the attitude I have taken.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Clement Davies: I deeply sympathise with the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory)—as he very rightly asked us all to do—but, in his reference to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he must realise that one of the greatest of the many assets possessed by the Prime Minister is a very great flexibility of mind which enables him to meet changing circumstances.
I sincerely congratulate the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, firstly, upon his new appointment, and, secondly, upon the way in which he presented this matter to the House. Unfortunately, I am now—too

247
rapidly for my liking—becoming reckoned among the seniors of this House, but I can assure the right hon. Member of the admiration we all feel for him and his work. Not only has he already established himself as a Minister, but he has impressed his own personality upon this House of Commons. If I am spared to see it, I look forward to even greater offices being held by him.
I also congratulate him upon the work which he did in Egypt. He tackled it resolutely and with a success which we can all see. I have not the slightest doubt that this agreement is one upon which we can congratulate ourselves. What is desired above everything in that area is stability, because it has had such fluctuating fortunes and has passed through such dangerous times.
We must always bear in mind the importance of the area. It is not a mere accident that some of the greatest people in the history of this world have come from that area, situated as it is between the continents of Europe, Asia and Africa. Unfortunately, for many centuries now it has ceased to occupy the very prominent position which it hitherto held for a very long time. We have been unable to achieve stability so far because of disunity, but I believe that this agreement is a step towards unity, and any step in that direction strengthens our position and the position of all free countries.
It has been argued that we have left the Canal Zone now because circumstances have altered and the Canal Zone is no longer able to be defended. The atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb are said to have made all the difference. My view is that ever since the heavier bombers were used the Canal, as an open highway, has been indefensible, but, be that as it may, I would much prefer to think that we had left there, not for strategic reasons, but because it was right that we should do so. That is a much better reason. I fail to see how there can be any strength in a base established in a hostile country, and undoubtedly for a long time now Egypt and the Egyptians have been hostile to us, in spite of all that we have done for them.
I think they owe more to us than to anyone else. We went there 74 years ago. We brought them law and order.
248
We harnessed the great waters. We put the Egyptians on a sound economic footing, and we might have put them on a far sounder one if only they had listened to us. We have taught them the ways of democratic government. In two great wars we saved them, and preserved their independence. Nevertheless, inasmuch as we were there on their land, in spite of all we have done, their regard turned to an intense dislike.
I cannot see that there can be any strength whatsoever when one remains in part of the house and one's host no longer requires one there. That cannot strengthen the position of the host. Therefore, by this agreement we have not only done the right thing, but we have, in truth and in fact, strengthened our position, and, through ourselves, the position of our allies in the Middle East, so far as Egypt is concerned.
Now I come to the matter that was referred to so eloquently and so well by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). This very agreement has now given rise to a fresh set of circumstances and has undoubtedly increased the anxiety that is felt. We have helped the Arabs in the past, every one of the Arab States. Not only Egypt, but every one of the Arab States owes its independence and its position to the actions of this country in the Middle East. We went to their assistance when we were fighting here, and we acted not only as their advocate but as their shield throughout the whole period.
I am sure that Israel would be the first to acknowledge that we, above everybody else, helped to create the State of Israel. That State is under a deeper debt to us than to anybody else, even materially. Let us remember that it was from this country that the first word went out, in the famous words of the Balfour Declaration, which led to the growth of the Zionist movement and, ultimately, to the formation of Israel. Not only does Israel recognise the debt it owes to us, but we recognise our own obligations towards Israel. We have done so in the Tripartite Declaration signed in May, 1950. However, it is a mere declaration made by the three of us.
When this agreement was made, and on the very day when the Foreign Secretary announced in this House the fact

249
that this agreement with Egypt had been signed, he gave a firm assurance to the Government of Israel and to the people of Israel that we were abiding by the Declaration made by the United States, France and ourselves, but, unfortunately, that in itself has not relieved the tremendous anxiety that there is in Israel.
The people of Israel have suffered so much since they had to fight for their independence. They had to fight against a combination of all the Arab States. Ever since then, although they have succeeded, as the right hon. Gentleman said, not only in doing amazing things but in performing almost miracles upon the hard and harsh land by turning it into a fruitful country, they have had the whole time to watch their long unnatural border day and night. They have had to conscribe their young men, and also young women.
They have done so even though they felt, so long as our Forces were along the Canal, that we would act as their shield and that nothing very disastrous could happen, and that we would intervene in the terms of the Tripartite Declaration. Today they understand that, within 20 months, our people will have gone and that that shield will no longer be there.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said that so far as he knew there was no intention of any aggressive movement against Israel by Egypt. I only wish it were so. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South gave us a quotation out of a statement that had been made a year ago, I think it was. I have one referred to in the "Manchester Guardian" today, and not merely quoted there but actually incorporated in its leading article. It is a statement made by no less a person that Colonel Nasser, and made after the agreement had been signed and after the right hon. Gentleman had left Egypt. It is in terms that would cause anxiety anywhere, but must of necessity cause deep anxiety everywhere throughout Israel.
Here is the statement quoted in the leading article:
"Only last week Colonel Nasser said: 'I shall control my rage until the most expedient moment for the reckoning will come … The Palestine problem will not be solved and there will be no peace between Jews and our-selves as long as the enemy holds a single
250
crumb of our soil. Man can forget everything except blood, vengeance and honour.'"
Those are very terrifying words.
Then the leading article goes on:
"Take again the remarks in the newspapers. 'Al Goumhouriya' says: 'The artificial State of Israel must be erased from the map of the world for ever.'"
I do not know how it came about that those statements were not brought to the attention of the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. He himself made a very definite statement.
Mr. Nutting: No. What I said was that I had no evidence of any plans for aggressive action. That is quite a different thing from speeches such as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn attention to, of which, of course, I am aware.
Mr. Davies: I did not expect that the right hon. Gentleman would be aware of plans for invasion, but what can we have more definite than the words of the Egyptian Prime Minister with whom he negotiated in signing this very agreement and who, the moment he leaves, makes this very bellicose, frightening statement about vengeance, blood and honour?
What are we to do? What we really want to do in that area, above everything else, is to build it up. But how can we get this stability if there is this continued disunity? I have already mentioned what is happening in Israel, and I have not the slightest doubt that in the same way along the border Syria, the Lebanon and Transjordan are also worried. Instead of being concerned about their future and their economic progress, the peoples of those countries are today concerned with watching one another. That cannot be of any help to anybody, least of all to themselves.
Is there anything that can be done? I know how hard the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has tried. He has tried time and time again, both by persuasion and by calling these people together, and by saying to them, "I cannot settle it and the United Nations cannot settle it. No arbitrator can settle it for you. Why not get into a room together and settle your differences between you?"
Israel is ready to do this and has said so time and again, both publicly and privately, but the Arab States refuse.

251
Therefore, one wonders whether there is anything further that we can do. May I make a suggestion? As I have said, we in the main are responsible for the creation of Israel. Today, we are her best friends, and we have brought others into joining with us on the Tripartite Declaration.
That is going a long way; that is a guarantee. It rather reminds me of the guarantees contained in the Charter of the United Nations. The fine and noble words in that Charter appeal to us all, but none of us, and least of all the Foreign Secretary, relies entirely upon the great words that are to be found in the Charter. If we could have relied on them, we would not have taken part in bringing about the Brussels Treaty, and the right hon. Gentleman would not have undertaken during the last few weeks the very great task of bringing the nine nations together and of forming N.A.T.O. and the South-East Asia Organisation.
Why, again, should there be a Pacific Pact if the words and guarantees contained in the United Nations' Charter are sufficient? We realise that something closer and more definite has to be given by way of guarantee. I wonder whether this trouble is not due to the fact that there is discrimination between what is done to the Arabs and what is done to the Jews, although I admit at once that the right hon. Gentleman wants to be fair to both of them, and merely wants to bring them together.
However, there is this discrimination. When it comes to the Arabs, there is a definite binding agreement. A definite binding agreement of mutual aid is made between ourselves and Transjordan, and such an agreement is made again between ourselves and Libya. Such an arrangement is also really contained in the new agreement made with Egypt, and there is another which was made with Iraq as long ago as 1936, in which we said to them, "If you are attacked, we shall be alongside you in a moment."
I agree that there is the statement contained in the Tripartite Declaration, but there is a lot of difference between the fine words contained in the Declaration by the three countries and a close, binding agreement. Therefore, I am wonder-
252
ing whether, if we made a definite agreement with Israel saying, "If you are attacked, we shall be with you," that might not also have its effect upon the Arab States.
The Arab States have their own binding agreements, but Israel stands alone. It might very well happen that if we took that further step, it would bring about what we all desire, and that they would then get into a room together and settle their differences, thus bringing peace to this part of the world, and that tremendous prosperity would undoubtedly follow. Not only would that have an immediate effect upon the fortunes of all in the area, but it would have a tremendous effect upon the rest of the world.
As I have said, this part of the world has played a very great part in the history of humanity in the past. It can play such a part again, but only if all the countries concerned work together in unity for the peace and welfare of all.
Mr. Thomas Reid: Surely, if there is to be military intervention on one side or the other, that intervention should be made by the United Nations, the people who set up the Jewish State.
Mr. Davies: I thought I had made it quite clear that there is a difference between a far-off guarantee, or the words used in the Charter of the United Nations, and the closer, binding agreement such as we have made with the Arabs and such as we need for our safety by the establishment of the Brussels Treaty and N.A.T.O.
5.38 p.m.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I think that probably the whole House agrees with the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) in his assessment of the needs of any policy or strategy that we may have in the Middle East, namely, that it should aim at stability because, as has been rightly said, our one interest above everything else in that part of the world is stability.
I propose to touch upon two questions which are concerned with this stability, and which, therefore, have a direct bearing upon what I am sure ought to be, and indeed is, the main aim of British policy in the Middle East. That aim is the stability of the whole area so that we can get out of it what we feel we want and

253
need, and what we feel that everyone there has the right to have, namely, the raw materials of the area for the benefit of those who live in it and for the benefit of the whole world. These things can be won if there is stability.
One of the questions bearing upon this stability is that of Cyprus. This has already been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). I propose to deal with the question quite shortly because I know that there will be other occasions on which it will be dealt with at greater length. I shall certainly not fall into the error, the very easy error, of regarding that problem as a simple one. I think that it is an extremely difficult question.
I must say that I begin with a prejudice which is probably shared by almost everybody in this House, which is that if 80 per cent. of the population of a given territory want to be governed in a particular way, then probably all of us would say prima facie that they ought to be allowed to govern themselves in that way—provided, I would submit, that the granting of their request to be allowed to govern themselves, or to be governed in the particular way of their choice, does not interfere with the legitimate rights of other people who may be their immediate neighbours or, perhaps, their not so immediate neighbours.
I will give a simple example. If Scotland really decided that she wished to be governed entirely separately from the United Kingdom, I suppose that, according to the principle I have just laid down, she ought to be allowed to do so; but if, on the other hand, the City of London expressed a similar wish, I suspect that any impartial person looking at the position from the point of view of the principle I have propounded, would say, "No, the City of London should not be allowed to do this because all our planning and transport all over the nation is centred in it, money has been poured into this City; as a capital city, it is the natural port of a great hinterland, and it would not be right to do this, having regard to the rights of the surrounding people."
Looking at the question of Cyprus from the point of view of this principle, and in the light of these two very simple illustrations of those who should be allowed to follow their wishes and those who
254
should not, what are the considerations which are in the mind of the Government in saying that they will not consider or discuss the question of allowing Cyprus to be governed in accordance with the apparent wishes of 80 per cent. of its population?
Is it because of the 20 per cent. who, broadly speaking, we can call the Cypriot-Turks? I submit that because one-quarter of the population of Cyprus do not want Enosis—union with Greece—that in itself is not sufficient to permit of us saying in equity, "These people shall not be governed in accordance with their own wishes." Is it some other consideration? Is it Turkey, as distinct from the Cypriot-Turks? It is here that I feel that the Government have not been quite fair with the House, in that they have not told us sufficiently about what Turkey thinks. What is Turkey's conception of this matter? What would the reaction of Turkey be to an immediate prospect of Enosis? Would it be sharp, as some very responsible people think?
Some people claim that in Cyprus itself those who support Enosis are divided roughly in the proportion of 50 per cent. as between those who are Greek Nationalists, and who, broadly speaking, are Conservatives, and those who are Communists or, at any rate, Communist inspired and extremely Left. Akel is, I believe, the name of the party to which these latter belong.
Some people claim that if there were an immediate prospect of Enosis, those in the Akel Party who now support Enosis for their own reasons, would cease to do so, and there might easily be civil war inside Cyprus as between those two very considerable factions, and, before any Greek army was able to arrive on the scene, a Turkish army would have arrived. We want to know if this sort of thing is a mere flight of fancy or is it the Government's view that it is a possibility. Is this one of the considerations which they are thinking of when they say that they cannot allow the express wishes of the 80 per cent. to prevail because of strategic considerations?
So far I have only asked questions. I think that we ought to be told more by the Government about this position and the considerations which make up their reasons for not doing anything about the Cyprus question from the point

255
of view of change of sovereignty, summed up in the words "strategic reasons," by the Colonial Secretary recently. Can we be told more about it? I submit that something has to be done, and it is no use sitting down and saying, "We do not propose to discuss this matter." That just will not do.
It seems to me that we should go to the Greeks and the Turks and the Cypriots and say that we in this country have been good friends of the Greeks and the Turks for too long to allow this question to bedevil our relations with them or, indeed, the relations between the two countries, Greece and Turkey, themselves. Let us get together and talk about it. Let us talk with anybody who has an interest, as we have, in the stability of this area.
It may be that we could find that there would be some form of condominium or some "European" solution which would, for the present, tide us over this ridiculous position into which we are drifting, whereby we shall find ourselves at loggerheads with Greece certainly and probably with Turkey also. If there were, for instance, a British governor, a Greek governor, a Turkish governor and possibly two other governors to make an odd number, we might still this question until such time as the international situation permits of a more permanent solution being found.
It really is not any use for us to say—if the Government do say it; I have not heard the Government actually saying it but I have heard people on the other side of the House say it—that this 80 per cent. of Cypriots are not really Greeks at all. What does it matter whether they are Greeks by race or blood if they feel themselves to be Greeks and if they wish to be regarded as Greeks? Any other consideration, as it seems to me, is quite irrelevant, including the consideration that according to the literature of the ancient Greeks it seems that the ancient Greeks, any rate, regarded them as aliens.
A nation is surely more a body of ideas than a race of men, as, indeed, the United States shows. It certainly has more than one race of men in it: it has many religions, languages and racial origins, and yet it is undoubtedly a nation. Sir Ronald Storrs wrote,
256
"The Greekness of the Cypriots is, in my opinion, indisputable."
Ever since 1830 and the Greek War of Independence there have been expressions of ideas favouring Enosis.
Has this matter been whipped up
by agitators, the lawyers or the Church? It may very well have been. I must confess that I have the deepest suspicion of any political movement which is led by a Church: undue influence is only too likely. But the fact is that this movement is here, with 80 per cent. support of the people of the island, and all I submit to the Government is that we just cannot afford to sit back and say that we will not discuss it.
Something must be done with the Cyprus question as a contribution to the stability of that area. Of course, there may be other strategic considerations in the mind of the Government than the one I have touched upon. We must not allow the impropriety, inconvenience and almost indecency of two N.A.T.O. countries reaching the position of being at loggerheads, perhaps even coming to arms, among themselves. There may be other considerations, but surely we are not seriously suggesting that Cyprus can ever be a base in the sense in which the Suez Canal was a base. It may have a few offices, perhaps, for the officers of the Middle East headquarters, but nothing more. Surely we are not suggesting more than that. If, when a reply is made to this debate the Government could give some indication of what are these strategical considerations that prevent them from even discussing this question, I for one would be grateful.
The second point, which has already been brought to the attention of the House this afternoon, and which I should like to underline, is the question of stability viewed from the angle of the Israeli border. Instead of trying to concoct some sort of base in Cyprus, would it not be far better to come to a sensible agreement with Israel?
I agree heartily with what has been said about the friendliness of the Israeli people towards ourselves. I question whether there is a more reliable or more friendly people to us in the Middle East than the Israeli people, and it would be

257
far better to come to a sensible agreement with them which would make for stability on their border. So long as that instability exists, the whole Middle East is in a state of instability and we forfeit our two main immediate objectives—oil, and space in which to manoeuvre troops in time of trouble.
What are we doing in that area to achieve this stability? Are we not bolstering up very small minorities in the Arab States who are, in fact, leaving enormous majorities of their peoples in a state of poverty, ignorance, illiteracy for the most part, and disease? Surely it would be very much better if we insisted that any revenues which came from us by way of either oil royalties or subsidies were devoted to raising the standards generally of their people and making those countries more stable; because at present they are extremely fertile ground for the breeding of Communism.
I was pleased at the advance made this afternoon by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, but are we not turning a nearly blind eye to the origins of these incidents which continue on the Israeli border? We have heard the threat, which was mentioned just now, by Colonel Nasser. Almost every one of the Arab leaders has at one time or another—and two of them, to my knowledge, fairly recently—stated that it was their object to drive the Israelis into the sea.
We know that the Israelis want nothing better than peace because, without it, they cannot exist. Therefore, there is no excuse for pretending that the blame for these incidents on the Israeli border lies on the side of the Israelis. It is the intention, I submit, of the Arab minorities who rule these Arab countries to do that which they were unable to do by overt military action, and to play tip-and-run on the border in order to put upon the Israeli State a far greater burden of defence expenditure than it can possibly bear.
Colonel Cyril Banks: A few moments ago, speaking of Cyprus, the hon. and learned Member said that he thought that in certain cases 80 per cent. of the population should say by whom they wished to be governed. Does he not think that the same formula might have been applied at one time in Palestine by the people who lived there?
Mr. Mallalieu: I think it might have been applied. Indeed, in all countries it should be applied. In Palestine at the present time I should certainly apply it.
Colonel Banks: Does the hon. and learned Member consider that the present Israeli Government would now be in power in Palestine had that formula been applied?
Mr. Mallalieu: If the majority had been allowed to speak, the Israeli Government probably would not be in power. That might apply to a great many countries.
It would be difficult to imagine a country which has not come to existence by the exercise of force of arms rather than the force of votes. Nevertheless, the ideal which we all have is that we want, if possible, to allow the majority to govern itself in accordance with its own wishes. I should certainly apply that to the Arabs, as well as to the Israelis or to any other country.
We really ought to try to stop this tension on the Israeli border by ceasing to pretend that the fault is on both sides, when out of their own mouths the Arabs stand condemned because they want to turn the Israelis into the sea.
Major Legge-Bourke: I hope that in his suggestion as to the motive of the surrounding Arab States the hon. and learned Member will not overlook the very great service which the Arab Legion has rendered in trying to keep law and order on that front.
Mr. Mallalieu: The Arab Legion has done great work, but that was not what I was aiming at. It is not always the Arab Legion which starts the incidents on the Israeli border. On the contrary, it is probably done by irregulars, and more often than not it is condoned by authority.
We ought to make our position absolutely plain. We should say that we realise where the blame lies and recognise that the trouble could be stopped, provided we came to a sensible agreement with Israel. That would show the Arab countries that we are extremely friendly and wish to co-operate with them as well as with the Israelis for stability in the Middle East. It would demonstrate our belief that the best form of co-operation

259
there would be a cessation of these incidents on the Israeli border, and the establishment now of a peace which it is puerile to pretend can be delayed for ever. If we were to press forward in these directions, we would contribute significantly to that stability in the Middle East which we all wish to see established.
5.57 p.m.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: If I do not follow the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) into his discourse on Cyprus, it is not because I should not like to discuss that issue with him but because it has been made clear that today is not the occasion for going deeply into that problem. With regard to the second part of the hon. and learned Member's speech, dealing with the fears of Israel, I cannot help feeling that no service is done by stressing the fears of one side as against those of the other side. Anybody who has travelled in the Middle East knows perfectly well that there are grounds for genuine fears on both sides.
My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, in debate after debate, have repeated firmly their intention to do all that they can both to end that tension and to abide strictly by the terms of the Tripartite Declaration. The best service that we can do, therefore, is not to take sides in a dispute which has been bedevilled very much because it has gone on far too long already Rather we should give support to the Foreign Secretary in what my right hon. Friend today said was our policy of quietly and patiently pursuing a means of reconciliation between the two sides without exacerbating matters by taking part in a continuation of this dogfight which, as I have said, has gone on far too long.
More generally in his opening remarks today, the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), the former Foreign Secretary, speaking from the Opposition benches, was rather ungenerous to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about the great achievements that any unbiased observer would agree have been acheived by the Government in the Middle East. The right hon. Gentleman's criticism about the agreements with Egypt and Persia in particular was that they were not good enough. We
260
always say that agreements are not perfect and that is doubtless so here, but at least we can say that these agreements are better than nothing and it is precisely nothing that was left by the Labour Government when they went out of office.
The other argument I have heard put forward from the benches opposite about these agreements, and particularly the Egyptian one, is that a better one could have been reached much earlier. It is a perfectly valid argument that with the expiry of the 1936–56 agreement approaching our bargaining power for getting a new one decreased accordingly. But on that argument, if followed to its logical conclusion, it should have been still easier for the Labour Government to have reached an agreement during the six years that they held office, when the end of the current agreement was still some distance off.
In actual fact, by our patient work since the present Government came into power, we have attained one particular credit point which I do not believe the Opposition were ever within an arm's length of getting, and that was the inclusion of our N.A.T.O. ally, Turkey, among the countries which would cause reactivation under this treaty being brought into force. Contrary to the views of some of my hon. Friends—and we all understand and respect them fully; I stress that at the outset—most of us here regard this treaty not just as a salvage operation or the best that we can get, but as a very real and positive thing from which many benefits have already flowed and from which we have every reason to expect many more will follow in the future.
Some years ago, while the treaty dispute with Egypt was going on, I had the good fortune to be in that country for a short time, and whatever we may now say about the population being hostile or not, it immediately became apparent that we were by no means popular with the articulate leadership in all political parties throughout that country. A fact that we have had to face for some considerable time was that the Egyptians wanted to get us out. When I called at Cairo for a short time during my recent visit to East Africa with the Parliamentary Commonwealth Association, the first advantage I noticed from the new agreement was a transformation in the feelings

261
of all sections of Egyptian society towards us. An Englishman landing in Egypt now is regarded immediately as a friend, and the whole atmosphere has altered drastically for the better.
The second point that occurs to me concerns the upkeep of the installations. Obviously, we should prefer that our Forces should be there to look after those installations and to maintain the garrison base, but, as the late Government found out and as we know only too well, no agreement was possible with the Egyptians which meant the leaving of British troops in that base. We in this country may regret it because we have enjoyed our national sovereignty for such a long time that we think there is nothing particularly undignified about the presence on our soil of friendly allied troops, and not only do we think so but so do many Powers in Europe.
The Egyptians, however, are at the moment too sensitive to understand the difference between occupation and the presence of the troops of a friendly Power. We hope that in years to come they will understand that in the modern world considerable advantages flow from the sort of co-operation which the N.A.T.O. Powers enjoy. Until that time arrives we have a new agreement with the Egyptians and in that respect we have at least safeguarded the installations not only up to the end of 1956 agreement but for some five years beyond that with the question of the renewal and extension of the agreement being left open. That, I think, is a marked advance on anything that could have been envisaged here three years ago.
Some mocking remarks have been made about the Prime Minister calling suddenly to his aid the argument about the H-bomb and dispersal of our Forces. I do not think that that is fair at all, because, of course, it surely is true that the advent of various nuclear bombs in the field of military strategy has forced us to make a re-appraisal of our military position. In Egypt, all our Forces were grouped in one large area. Under the revised plan one of the positive benefits will be that our Forces will be dispersed over a number of smaller units throughout the Middle East.
Mr. Crossman: I gather that the hon. Member just now described the Suez
262
Canal as a small area. After all, it is 100 miles long and probably some 40 miles wide. Would the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the area in Cyprus, where we are proposing to construct a £20 million base, is larger or smaller than the Suez area?
Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman, who is always coming into this House with bloodcurdling stories about the devastating effects of the H-bomb, is now, I understand, saying that the H-bomb would not do so much damage. What he has suggested about the base moving into Cyprus is a deliberate misinterpretation of what the Government have said up to now. What I am saying, and what Government spokesmen have said, is that Cyprus is to be only one of a number of dispersal centres in the Middle East, and if the hon. Gentleman had not interrupted me I was going to mention some of the other ones. They are widely dispersed and are more than 100 miles apart.
Mr. Crossman: That is not the question I asked. The hon. Gentleman said that the reason the Suez base was being left was that it was a small area and is now obsolescent owing to the H-bomb. May I ask him whether the area of Cyprus, where we are now building a £20 million base, is larger or smaller than Suez or at least as obsolescent?
Mr. Bennett: I thought I answered that point. No one has suggested for one moment that the whole base which was in Suez should now be moved to Cyprus.
Mr. Crossman: Because it is obsolescent?
Mr. Bennett: I am saying that only part of the base is going to Cyprus, and if Cyprus came under an H-bomb attack only a section of our Forces, which previously, were all grouped in one place, would be hit because the others are to be widely dispersed throughout the Middle East. In other words, instead of one base there are to be five or six. That, I think, spells dispersal.
Mr. S. Silverman: Where are the other ones?
Mr. Bennett: If I could be allowed to continue my speech, that is exactly the next point I was going to make.

263
There have been suggestions where our troops might go in the Middle East. We could have a greater concentration of Armed Forces, by agreement, in Libya, and another country is Transjordan. Another possibility, which is not to be disregarded altogether, is some fresh agreement with Iraq if that could be reached, and we have our friendly ally, Turkey, with whom it is not impossible to envisage some agreement on the same terms as we enjoy with our other N.A.T.O. partners.
Finally in this context—and this is the principal point I wanted to make in this connection—I want to plead for a rear base, if it is militarily strategically advisable, to be established in Kenya. When I was in Kenya recently I found that the community generally endorsed the idea of us having a military rear base for stores, etc., in Kenya. That would not only give us the advantage of possessing a base well back from the possibility of sudden and devastating attack, but it would also be in a sterling country, so that expenditure for it would not be in hard currency, as would be the case if we had to stay in or go to a foreign country. Thirdly, it would introduce an element of stability into Kenya and into East Africa generally, which events recently have shown would be nothing but advantageous.
The other arguments in favour of the conclusion of this agreement have been made on a number of occasions and I shall not repeat them at length. However, we know that the position which has existed up to now, with our 80,000 troops grouped in the Suez Canal area, has not been good for the morale of the Army or for recruitment. By the release of those Forces elsewhere we shall, in addition to the other advantages I have mentioned, do a great deal to improve locally their morale and well being and the conditions under which our troops in the Middle East are serving.
Mr. M. Follick: The hon. Gentleman was suggesting Kenya, but we have already built an important base in the Mackinnon Road and we gave it up because it was not serviceable.
Mr. Bennett: I said, and I repeat, that in the light of existing conditions, which
264
have altered materially because of nuclear weapons, militarily and strategically there is a case for reviewing the possibility of having a satisfactory rear base in Kenya.
Economically, too, there is every argument for our having completed this agreement. Wherever we put our Forces, whether in Kenya, Cyprus or Jordan, we would save the expense of scarce hard currency, which would be of considerable assistance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
One facet of this question which has not been touched on, and which, from the start of this controversy, I have felt to be all-important, is that if an agreement had not been reached by the previous Government or by this one and 1956 had arrived, what a much weaker position we would have been in. Under Article 8 of the old Treaty, which is now expiring, there was a provision that in the event of no agreement by consent having been reached by 1956, the parties would go to arbitration either by the League of Nations or some other body which could be agreed between them.
There is not much doubt but that this body ultimately would be the United Nations, and if a dispute as to Whether we should keep our troops on Egyptian soil or not had gone to the United Nations, one of two things could have happened. It could either have gone to the Security Council, where probably we would have been out-voted, and then would have had to face the choice of using the veto or else of going out of Egypt lock, stock and barrel, without any agreement; or it would have gone to the General Assembly where we would stand in even greater danger of being out-voted, and in that event we would have had the grim choice of flouting the United Nations or of going out of Egypt also without any agreement having been reached. In the event, the agreement that has now been reached carries us over that danger. Not only does it keep us our position until 1956 but, subject to certain admitted limitations, we now have a reasonably satisfactory agreement with Egypt for the stability of the Middle East lasting through the next seven years.
Coming briefly to Persia, here again the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South was once more a

265
little ungenerous over the arrangement we have managed to reach with Persia. As he has returned to the Chamber, may I repeat my last remark, that it is all very well picking holes in the agreement, but it is better than no agreement at all, which was precisely what the right hon. Gentleman left behind when he vacated his high office. Looked at purely factually, it was under the Labour Government that Abadan was lost, and it is under a Conservative Government that the British are back in Abadan again.
Mr. H. Morrison: Forty per cent.
Mr. Bennett: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an honest answer to this question: whether he would not have clutched at this agreement with both hands if he could have had it offered to him during his administration?
As to the figure of 40 per cent. of the consortium which he has just mentioned, in fact this is rather more than 40 per cent. and I thought the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs was modest on that point today. Britain's share of the consortium is nearer 50 than 40 per cent. because of our large holding in Royal Dutch Shell. Therefore, Britain is not only the largest single shareholder in the new consortium which is to get the benefit of Persian oil for at least the next 25 years and probably for a long time thereafter, but we also have nearly a controlling interest in the consortium as such.
Before this agreement was reached, all we had was a claim on a big refinery which had closed down and which was apparently lost to us for ever. I should think that this is indeed an agreement of which we could be proud since we are now getting some compensation which was not offered before, although, admittedly, it is only limited compensation. Also, we have nearly a 50 per cent. interest in the combine which will run Persian oil for the next 25 years or more, and we are also getting about £220 million sterling from the other companies which will share with us in the running of the industry.
Today, our Ministers are telling the House a story of achievement in one field of foreign affairs, the Middle East, and every unbiased person will agree that they have every right to be extremely proud of that achievement. One after
266
another the problems left over by the previous Administration have been settled——
Mr. Crossman: Look at them being proud below the Gangway.
Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friends and I are extremely proud. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should not mock too much when hon. Members on this side of the House pay deserved tribute to their leaders. It is not a question of our trying to curry favour, as is often said, but it is in marked contrast to themselves when in office, because they never had anything about which to cheer their own leaders.
I repeat that on this side of the House we have every right to be extremely proud of our administration in the Middle East as well as in its conduct of foreign affairs generally throughout the world. I have no doubt that when history is written a Government which was heralded into office by jeers of "warmongers" from the party opposite, will go down as the greatest peace-making Government for many a year.
6.19 p.m.
Mr. Barnett Janner: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett) will not expect me to follow him in the eulogies which he has presented on behalf of his own Government to his own Government. At this stage, because time is short and many other hon. Members want to speak, I shall not enter into controversial matters of that nature.
Whilst I appreciate the attempt that is being made to settle the position in the Middle East, I am afraid that mistakes are being made in so far as the emphasis is concerned, in relation particularly to the attitude towards Israel and the Arab world respectively. Perhaps I am particularly entitled to speak on this matter. I happen to be occupying in a very humble way the position which was held by the person in the British Zionist Federation to whom the Balfour Declaration was given. It is rather interesting to look back a little on what has happened since that time.
Today is not only the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration but this year happens to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Dr. Herzel, the founder

267
of the Zionist Movement. I believe that if we had stood by what the Balfour Declaration really intended—and I speak on this issue irrespective of party in this House—and if we had done what we should have done and seen what we should have seen, we would not have thrown away one of the finest opportunities for co-operation in the Middle East that was ever presented to our country.
That is why for many years I have attempted in this House to foster a cause which I believe is in the highest interest of civilisation and of Britain. That is why, with men like Josiah Wedgwood, I believed strongly in the creation of Palestine as a British Dominion.
At the outset, I should like to quote his reply to a question which was put to the Prime Minister of Israel not very long ago so that the House may realise that Israel has gone very far towards fulfilling what it set out to do in the best interests not only of itself but of democracy and the world. The question was put by a correspondent to that very eminent statesman, Moshé Sharett. He was asked,
"What do you see as the outlook for the future for Israel?"
He replied:
"The outlook is one of a hard-working, modestly-living cultured democracy, making the best of its human and natural resources by a persistent pioneering effort, advanced education, improved technology and painstaking scientific research—learning from the experience of other nations and putting its lessons to the best possible use.
It is our basic purpose to foster the ties of brotherhood with the Jewish communities of the world. We rely on their assistance and spiritual attachment and we hope to contribute to the enrichment of their cultural life.
It is our ambition eventually to establish relations of good neighbourliness and peaceful collaboration with the Arab States, with whom we are ready to pool efforts, aimed at material and social progress, for the benefit of the entire region. In so doing, we do not propose to divest ourselves of our universal tradition. We are a people with world associations and we must strive to maintain and deserve that historic status."
If a statement of that nature were presented to us on either side of the House as being the aim and object of our own people here, who would or could cavil at it?
What is the concern of the Israelis at present? I have been in Israel a number of times and I have seen there how they
268
have created a State which is worthy of their pride. They have endeavoured to bring, and have brought, within their boundary men and women whose sufferings were such that they cannot be described in words. They have rebuilt the minds as well as the bodies of hundreds of thousands of the victims of the fiercest oppression and persecution that has ever taken place in the history of the world.
They have endeavoured to wrest life from a soil which has been barren for years. They have succeeded in making two blades of grass grow where one or none grew before. I submit that with that example the Middle East, if properly persuaded and properly directed by us, and others, could soon flourish in a way which would be remarkable, and which would bring real prosperity to the peoples of Arab countries and amity and understanding between them and Israel.
That is all that Israel asks. It is no good underestimating the boundary incidents. There in Israel, men and women have to go to work during the day and they have to sleep with a Sten-gun under their pillows because marauders come over the border from Jordan at night, whether authorised, unauthorised or semi-authorised, and innocent victims are killed night after night. They may be killed in ones or more. Perhaps it does not sound so bad "in ones" but that is happening night after night, and the tension is terrific. Yet while all that is going on the land is being improved. A democracy with a Parliament is building itself up in a manner which is worthy of any nation, and which should be a source of pride to the United Nations and to the League of Nations which created that State, with the help of the Jewish people and of this great country of ours.
That is the situation on one side. Why are the Israelis nervous about the general position? My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) has given a quotation, and the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), the Leader of the Liberal Party, has also made quotations from statements made by people who really count in that unfortunate Arab world in which there is so much power for the leadership and so little with the masses being led.
I should now like to give the exact translation of a statement made by Prime

269
Minister Nasser and to ask the House whether it is not fair to infer from it that things are very far from being as good as they should be. According to "Falastin," the Arab-Jordanian paper published in the Old City of Jerusalem, Nasser said:
"I shall restrain my fury until the hour of fruitful and useful fury comes. It will come when I and my friends have cleaned our house. We shall not clean the street as long as our house is still contaminated. The Arabs were defeated in the Palestine War because they were driven by their fury without judgment and clear thought. When we terminate the question of the Canal, Egypt will know but one problem—that of Palestine."
There cannot be much doubt about the intention of a statement of that kind. It may be that Nasser is trying to show that he is as good a nationalist as the Muslim Brotherhood, but it is a very dangerous thing to have leaders of his description expressing themselves in that way.
I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here. I remember, and you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that when the Nazi problem arose I urged, as he did, in this House 20 years ago that we should not take for granted the statements that were being made by Hitler and other Nazis, implying that Hitler did not really mean the terrible threats to Jews and others expressed by him earlier. The Nazis sent out statements in an attempt to deny what they had said before, and to suggest that they were humane people and had no intentions against the Jewish community. The result of all that was the murder
of six million people. That fact cannot be overlooked. We must remember that when leaders of the type of Nasser are about, stirring up the population, very serious consequences can ensue.
Today we have heard of some of the things that have been said by Egyptian leaders, but what is being done in Egypt? I do not know whether hon. Members realise that threats are not just stopping at words. I should like to quote from a report from Geneva. I wonder how many hon. Member realise that:
"Reports of alleged widespread Egyptian ill-treatment of Jews have been filtering through to Switzerland for example. The reports declare (1) that the Egyptian Government in recent months has proceeded with large-scale arrests of Jews. One hundred and fifty Jews are listed as having been recently imprisoned on charges, which are described as 'fantastic'; (2) that Egyptian Jews are being 'lumped together as Zionists, Communists, and even members of the Moslem Brotherhood'
270
as 'enemies of the State'; (3) that the Egyptian Jewish community is currently in a state of panic; and (4) that the interrogation methods used in questioning the arrested Jews 'stagger the imagination'."
I have a very unhappy recollection that I read in this House from a report in the same journal—the main journal of the Anglo-Jewish community, the "Jewish Chronicle"—a similar quotation about the Nazis at the time of the Hitler events, and people did not believe it. They said that it was just unbelievable and could not possibly be true; but it was true. I am sorry to say that I am convinced that what I have quoted just now is also true.
I believe there is a great obligation upon us, having conceded so much to the Egyptians and having conceded so much to the Arab world, to make our voice heard so that they will understand in unmistakable terms that the conscience of humanity will not allow any part of the kind of thing to be perpetrated in the Middle East which at one time was practised in that unhappy country of Germany at the time of the Nazi régime.
May I turn for a moment to another matter? Why do we not do something definite about the Suez Canal? After all, we know the international obligation which rests upon Egypt in this respect. I remember the Foreign Secretary himself, making an intervention when I asked a Question in this House about the free passage of Israeli ships, he said, "Why do the Government not push ships through?" I remember that very distinctly.
Why should we as a self-respecting House, as a self-respecting community—knowing that an international treaty is being broken and knowing full well that there is no answer to the breach—merely say that because the United Nations is dealing with it we have no further obligation, or that we have an obligation which we are not prepared to exercise individually but only collectively? Are we not part and parcel of the United Nations organisation? Have we not as much voice as any other nation concerned in the Security Council, or the United Nations organisation itself?
What are we afraid of? Why should we, too, not say to the Egyptians, who have detained a small vessel belonging to Israel, that Israel has as much right as any other nation to send ships through the Canal under the 1888 Treaty? Why

271
should we not say, "You must allow that ship to go through and let her men, whom you have illegally arrested, go free"? What is the matter with us? Have we come to a stage at which we are afraid to speak our mind? If we enter into an agreement with Egypt and give them concessions, why cannot we do the right thing and say, "We shall not stand for this kind of nonsense"?
What a stupid excuse they have given that the little Jewish boat attacked some Egyptian people and shot them up. I have heard that kind of argument used before. If I may be permitted to say so, it was referred to in this House at that time, it was used years ago by the Nazis. Even from the point of view of the Egyptians it is a most foolish explanation of a situation of that sort. Why should Israelis want to shoot anyone up? Why should not the boat, with its cargo of plywood, or other harmless goods, be allowed to proceed? What right had they to arrest the man in charge? Why do we not say to them, "We have made concessions to you. You must act in the spirit of the civilised world and do the right thing by the civilised world"? I think we could succeed if we did not shrink from doing our duty.
If we emphasised the points which could be emphasised the whole civilised world would be prepared to support our view. Not only would we be doing the right thing by ourselves but we would enhance our own prestige, our own dignity. We would be doing the right thing by the world and the right thing by the Egyptians and the Arabs. Why do we not tell the Arabs that they are cutting off their nose to spite their face when they boycott a country from which they could obtain products and to whom they could sell very much more than they themselves purchase? When Israel offers a pathway to the sea to Jordan, we should say, "For goodness sake take this opportunity and do something towards improving the conditions of your people."
Why do we always one-sidedly emphasise the question of the refugees? An hon. Member opposite said that the Arab refugees were pushed out by the Israelis. I say, and many others who know the truth say, that their own people told them, "Get out; you will be back again in a few days' time, as we shall have
272
pushed the Jewish people into the sea" I know, for example, that efforts were made by the Jews in Haifa, with the knowledge and approval of the Governor or the British person in charge, to persuade the Arabs—there was an Arab-Jewish Council—to accept an agreement to stay. The Jewish community said to their Arab co-citizens, "Remain in Haifa, the only thing we want is that you should not hold arms to use against us." These things can be checked up, but that is past history.
Why do the Arabs not take their refugees as the Jews have taken their kith and kin, gather them together and give them a chance to work on their own soil? What is wrong with that? Why are they using their own brethren as a pawn. That is the position. They are trying to persuade the rest of the world that the Arab refugee is in need of help. I am not denying it, but they could bring them on to their own land, where they could work as the Jews work in Israel. Is not that what we should try our best to encourage instead of letting this festering sore develop on the border? From time to time Israel has offered suggestions. It offered compensation. It offered to open a way to the sea for Jordan and it does all possible to help in the United Nations.
Mr. C. J. M. Alport: As a matter of information, will the hon. Member say how far the offer has been made to restore any or part of the land vacated to Jews by the Arab refugees and previously in their possession?
Mr. Janner: Israel has set a sum aside for the purpose of compensating them. I believe the hon. Member will accept my view—I say this to him in a perfectly amicable spirit—that Israel cannot possibly be expected to bring into their country at present the Arabs who left in consequence of their leaders telling them to go, and then used them as a pawn. The Arabs in Israel are being treated well. They are represented in the Parliament, the women have the vote, the educational system is open to them and the country is run on non-racial lines.
Why on earth do not the Arabs do the same thing for their brethren as the Jews have done for theirs? Would not that be the finest thing to do? I know that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of

273
State for Foreign Affairs have at heart the settlement of this issue. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious that in some way this problem should be settled. I appeal to the House. Do not let the Arab population think that because we are not making a sufficiently loud protest—I know we are protesting, but we are not making our protests sufficiently strong and often—they are doing right.
It has been pointed out by the Secretary of State that in this agreement there was an opportunity to create something on practical lines to make the Arabs realise their obligations. I appreciate the difficulties which the right hon. Gentlemen have experienced. But the world must realise that there are people who say they are trying to lift themselves out of the mire. They will not wish the world to point a finger at them and say, "You are not civilised people." What they are doing at present is certainly not civilised. I speak with emotion in these matters. I have been concerned with them for many years.
The opportunity is there. We should not just stand aside. We should take a lead, a strong lead, in whipping up public opinion which is there ready to be informed of the right position. I am certain that everyone in this country, and every civilised person in the world, would be prepared to support the plea I have made. Could we not point out to Egypt, for example, "You cannot arrest men and women and even put them in danger of their lives on charges which are obviously absurd; for example, because they happen to be members of another religion. You cannot be allowed to do that kind of thing. If you were so allowed other backward nations might follow your terrible example"? How should we deal with the same situation in different parts of the world?
I say that we must continually press home that fact. When the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs goes to the United Nations organisation shortly, may I ask him to do this? There he will have an opportunity to speak with the voice of Britain on matters of great importance. If he can succeed in bringing the Arab world to admit, as they know to be the case, that Israel is not aggressive, that what the Israel Prime Minister said in the reply that I have quoted is what Israel
274
means, and what the Zionist movement has always meant, he will return with something really worth while for Britain and for the world as a whole.
6.44 p.m.
Captain Charles Waterhouse: First, may I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs for leaving the Chamber in the middle of his speech. But I had to attend a Select Committee meeting upstairs, so I had no option but to attend to my duties in another part of the building. May I also thank my right hon. Friends for the fact that they have been able to arrange this second debate on this important subject. It amply meets the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary just before Christmas last year, when we first raised our voices in this House in dissent from the policy which we believed the Government was about to follow, and provides an extra and final chance—at least for those fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye—fully to express their views on what we believe to be a most important question.
Perhaps the House will allow me to make quite clear my own position and that of those hon. Members with whom I have been associated. I read in "The Times" yesterday that members of the "Suez Group" as its political correspondent called us, no longer had much fight left about them. I do not know that "The Times" is much of an organ to make that sort of accusation. I very often think when I look through its columns that I seldom find great efforts made for many things which I believe to be primarily British interests. I feel, too, that in the leading article today the remark that Her Majesty's Government are to blame in not having consulted Greece over a possible arrangement about Cyprus is not peculiarly helpful at this juncture.
However to clear up any doubts which "The Times" or any hon. Member may have, I should like to say quite clearly that the little association of hon. Members who have interested themselves in this matter for the last 20 or 21 months are as united on the subject today as they were on 29th July, when we had our debate on the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement. So far as I know, not one of those hon. Members has moved from the position which we then took up; and I have their autho-

275
rity to say that we view the subsequent events with the very greatest concern. We feel that matters as they have so far developed have fully justified the fears which we then expressed.
Naturally, I shall not try to rehash the debate which we had three months ago, but there is one point from that debate with which I should like to deal. Hon. Members may well remember it. It was a notable debate, but hon. Members will probably agree that the most notable contribution—and in saying this I in no way disparage the speeches made by my right hon. Friends—was the intervention of the Prime Minister; when he used those most striking words—that the thoughts of a year ago were now obsolete, that the base itself was obsolescent because in the interval the hydrogen bomb had intervened in our calculations.
I know that those words had a great effect on many of my hon. Friends, as they had on people in the country. They have frequently been quoted to me. It is, therefore, an astounding thing to read the Agreement which is now in our hands. We find that Articles 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and Annex II and its appendices A, C and D, which, in all, cover about 16 pages of this short White Paper, are entirely devoted not to the evacuation of the Suez Canal Zone base, but to its maintenance and replenishment—I repeat, replenishment—both in peace and war. I leave the matter with that bald statement, but it does seem to me to be a not easy task to tie up what the Prime Minister said then with the arrangements that the Foreign Office have made now.
The House will watch with interest the growth of the strategic reserve in this country arising from the movement of troops from the Middle East. We shall look forward with pleasure to the economies which it was alleged we will surely see from the movement of troops. We will see how large those economies will be after 1,200 technicians and 20,000 or 30,000 Egyptians have been paid by the contractors and after new stations have been built at Cyprus and elsewhere. I have not the smallest doubt that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Defence will welcome Questions on that subject from time to time.
276
One of the matters rightly stressed was the redeployment which this change would make possible. I do not think that this was fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. I have had to rely on reports given to me, but I do not think that he dealt with that. I very much hope that the Foreign Secretary will deal with it at some length. Obviously, redeployment is all important if we are to maintain our position in the Middle East, but I do hope that redeployment will not stop with the Middle East and the Mediterranean. I feel very strongly that our redeployment must stretch out further south and that we must do something about the Persian Gulf and about Africa.
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can say a few words about the station that we were starting at Mackinnon Road, and explain why that was stopped. I remember that the matter came before the Public Accounts Committee, when it was said that we had lost about £12 million as a result of our change of plan and withdrawal; but I have not been able to find any clear explanation of the reasons why that withdrawal was started. This is a matter of very great importance to the whole of Africa. I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with it when he speaks later in the debate.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) dealt, with great eloquence and tremendous sincerity, with the position of the Jews. I do not pretend to be a Zionist, but Zionist policy has been accepted and everybody in the House, whether Zionist or not, must admire the work that has been done by the Israelis in their new home. Therefore, every one of us should be concerned, from their point of view apart from anything else, at the position that they have been forced into with their shipping through the Canal.
It seems to me that Article 8 of the Agreement derogates from the dignity of the whole of the Agreement. It is hard to understand how anybody could seriously put in words such as:
"… to uphold the Convention guaranteeing the freedom of navigation of the Canal …."
at a time when this little Israeli ship to which the hon. Member referred was under arrest and the Jewish sailors were, presumably, on Egyptian soil.

277
I thought that the hon. Member rather overstressed the matter when he spoke of the little Jewish ship firing on the great Egyptian people. I am not quite sure that it is working out that way. There are those who take the view that if the Jews wanted to they could be in Cairo within a fortnight, with little more than token resistance. I do not know whether that is true or not.
Mr. Janner: I hope that I did not express myself in such a way that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not understand. The ship to which I referred was the "Bat Galim," which is a ship that has been stopped on the pretext that it had been firing on people before reaching the Suez.
Captain Waterhouse: I appreciate that, but the hon. Gentleman was taking the attitude that Israel was an insignificant little country faced by a great and paramount Egypt. I do not think that that is so. The fact remains that here we have a breach of the Convention of 1888 which has been looked on as a Cardinal point in imperial and, in fact, world transport arrangements.
This Convention has been honoured by
us meticulously. Even in the time of the Italian attack on Abyssinia we forbore from using the powers which were so easily in our hands to stop Italian ships going through the Canal. Now the Egyptians have stopped Israeli oil and Israeli ships altogether but we are told that, in the kindness of their hearts, they are allowing some goods to be taken to Israel. I know the figures given by my right hon. Friend about the 90 million tons of shipping, but they can in no way detract from the error that the Egyptians are in in interfering with free traffic through the Canal.
It is a great pity that when we had so much to give away, such great concessions to make, we did not take the opportunity to insist that the Convention should be honoured. What trust can one have in an Agreement which is now signed by a Power which is in open breach of a treaty in which the freedom of navigation should be secured through the Canal?
The most important point of all is the position of the Sudan. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of
278
State for Foreign Affairs referred to it and said that he had made it crystal clear to Nasser that interference with the Sudan would be a breach of the Agreement and an act of political folly. It is all very well to make it crystal clear that it would be a breach of an agreement and an act of political folly, but so what? What is the sequel to that? Do we simply say, "You have done very wrong; you have broken the Agreement; you have been very foolish"—or do we do something about it? When they were in breach of the Convention of 1888 we did nothing. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite handed it over to U.N.O., and U.N.O. found a convenient shelf for it, where it has been sitting ever since. As far as I know, nobody has even dusted it. Is that to be the position about the Sudan, too, if the Egyptians continue to break the Agreement?
Surely we must have some real thought for the Sudanese, whose independence we guaranteed. There is every indication that the Egyptians mean to get effective control of the Sudan. There was the incident reported the other day of Major Salah Salem who, in the Sudan, spoke in large terms about the independence which they were safeguarding. When that report went up to Cairo the man who sent the report got a reprimand and the sack for doing so wrong as to repeat in Cairo something that Salah Salem had said in Khartoum. That does not look as if Egypt intends to play very straight.
I should like my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to say something about the Sudan. Have we washed our hands of it? Do we feel that we have discharged our obligations? May Egypt now do what she wishes with the expectations, rights and liberties of the Sudanese? I do not believe that that is the position. If it were so, I should feel that it was extremely shameful.
I believe that much more hangs on the attitude that we adopt about the Sudan than merely the Sudan itself. The Sudan is to be used as an indication throughout Africa, and possibly throughout the world, as to whether or not we still intend to carry out our duties and obligations. The Sudan was never part of our Empire, but we have promised to see that the Sudanese have independence. We have promised other people the right of development. If we give way to Egypt

279
in the Sudan, will it not be taken as an indication throughout Africa, and even throughout the whole British Colonial Empire, that we are not going to stand firm?
That is really the position about which I and hon. Friends of mine who are acting
with me in this matter feel so extremely keenly. We think that the Agreement is a misfortune. However, it has been signed, and there is nothing that we can do about it, but about the future we can and will do something. We will use our utmost powers to urge this consideration on our right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench, and our confidence in the Foreign Secretary and his ministerial colleagues is such that we believe that we shall not urge our plea in vain.
7.1 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Lee: On the main issue of the need for the conclusion of an agreement on Suez, I entirely disagree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse), although he has couched his argument in an admirable manner and one can agree with much of what he said on the issues which arise from the agreement with Egypt.
When I listened to the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett), I thought how remarkable it was that a geographical change of about 10 yards in this House could turn "a policy of scuttle" into "agreements of which we can all be very proud." Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's defence of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's statement in the last debate on Cyprus was rather remarkable. The hon. Gentleman was assuring us that Cyprus would not be made the only base and that there would be a number of other bases and, therefore, the danger was not quite so imminent. At one stage I thought the hon. Member was going as far as assuring the people of Cyprus that as only part of the base would be there they could feel confident that only a part of a hydrogen bomb would drop upon them. I thought that his argument was completely negative and did not meet the case made by the right hon. Gentleman in opening the debate.
280
I want to refer more to the Persian situation. Although the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs gave us some details, I thought that he tended to gloss over a great deal. From questions asked from this side of the House, I thought it became clear that the agreement in respect of Abadan is, financially speaking anyway, a rather poor and thin one. One is tempted to refer back to some of the statements made in the 1951 General Election about the attitude of the Labour Government towards Abadan and to contrast them with the mouse which has now emerged from the negotiations of the past three years.
It became clear that we receive about £25 million and that the Persian interests will own the refinery at Abadan. I do not know whether the Foreign Secretary can give us an assessment of the value of the Abadan refinery. I have seen it from the air and I have been through it and looked at it in detail. I am not an accountant, but it is a complete engineering miracle in the middle of a Middle Eastern desert, and the cost of the refinery, the boosters and the rest of the machinery in the oilfields must be colossal. It is apparent that under the agreement on Abadan we are suffering a huge loss.
It would appear that the other interests which are now going into oil-getting in South Persia are to pay us about £232 million, but that is a payment for buying their way into oil-getting in Persia and can by no means be described as compensation to us from the Persian Government. Indeed, I am not too keen about some of the people who are now apparently to capitalise some of the oil-getting in Persia.
When Qavam was Prime Minister of Persia he was speculating about bringing the Soviet into Northern Persia with the idea of starting oil companies there to be held jointly by Persia and the Soviet. Who knows whether that position may not arise again in a few years' time? If there are American interests in the south and the Soviet exploiting oil in the north, one can imagine that things will not be too comfortable for the Persian people or for world peace.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said that £79 million will go to the Persians themselves. I should like

281
to know precisely what will happen with that money. Hon. Members who have visited South Persia will know that much of the trouble there arose because the oil workers of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company believed that house building, hospital building and the rest of the social side of their lives was the duty of the oil company and not of their own Government.
In 1946, when I visited South Persia with two colleagues from the House, we could find hardly a brick house in South Persia which had not been built by the oil company. The hospitals, the schools, the roads, the sewerage system—everything had been built by the oil company. Looking at that background, we might believe that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company would get credit for all that work, but the fact was that all the Persian workers believed that it was the company's duty to do that sort of thing and that it was being done under the company's agreements for getting oil in Persia.
During the war the need to double the size of the Abadan refinery arose, and building material had to be diverted from the erection of brick houses for the oil workers to the task of enlarging the refinery. At the same time thousands of people were moving into Abadan to work in the refinery. They put the blame for the fact that house building had stopped on to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and not the Persian Government. It was a build-up of this sort of thing which was exploited by the Tudeh Party and eventually led to the difficulties which we experienced in South Persia.
The Government, therefore, owe a duty to us to tell us precisely what is to happen with the £79 million which is, apparently, to be given to the Persians. I want to relate an experience which may be semi-amusing, but depicts the sort of thing which was happening in Persia in the days when I visited the country. I was discussing with the manager of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company the manner in which he had got along with the various Shahs of Persia, and so on. He said that on one occasion he approached the Persian leaders and said, "Is it not time that an educational system was started in South Persia?" The reply was, "Yes, we agree that it is, but we are a poor
282
nation and cannot afford that sort of thing." The manager said, "I will build you eight schools"—I saw the schools, and they are very fine establishments indeed—" but I do so on the understanding that it would not do for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company to be in any way connected with the educational system which you inaugurate, for people would say that we were making good little Persians for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company."
He told the Persian Government that they must get the teachers, decide their own curriculum and go ahead. After these schools had been idle for 12 months, he again approached the Government and said, "Don't you think it is time you started an educational system?" The reply was "Well, you know what it is; we have not got sufficient educated persons to act as teachers," whereupon the Anglo-Iranian manager said, "All right, we will second a number of our own educated Persians to act as teachers until you can educate enough people of your own to do the job. You make your arrangements with them as far as salaries are concerned."
After three months, the teachers came back and asked the Anglo-Iranian management what they supposed they were to use for money, and the management again approached the Persian Government, but the reply was the same. It was, "We are a very poor country," and, in the end, the Anglo-Iranian management built the schools and paid the teachers, and now they have to pay for their co-operative attitude. While all this was going on, all those interested in the royalties on oil were on a very good thing indeed.
It really is not enough to believe that we shall get a settlement of our problems in Persia merely by saying that a huge sum is now going into the Persian economy. We really must take some responsibility for seeing that that sum, or a great portion of it, is allowed to be used to increase the standard of life of the Persian workers, and particularly those who are workers in the refinery in the employ of this new oil company. Unless we do that, I feel that we are kidding ourselves if we believe that we are getting a permanent settlement of the oil problem of Persia.
Mr. Cyril Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how he thinks we can do that without infringing the sovereignty of the Persian people?
Mr. Lee: We could do it; it is quite simple. When we are making these agreements with nations in the Middle East, it is possible, and I dare say that we have done it on many occasions, to ensure that a certain percentage of any money paid should be devoted to capital equipment, etc. in such ways as will serve the very best interests of the people.
I do not want to be too blunt about this, but, in reality, government in many parts of the Middle East is quite a racket. I am tempted to say more, but I will not do so. We must try to ensure that our objective is peace in the Middle East, but we cannot ensure that if we are continually to have these crises. The moneys which are
allocated to this purpose must have some proviso attached to them in order to ensure that they will be used to benefit the people and the workers and that they will not be used by what the Persians called "The thousand families."
One of the conditions which the
Persians asked to include in the negotiations was that no publicity should be given to the fact that discussions were in progress to increase the royalties, because, otherwise, the people working in the refinery would want to know where their share of the increase was coming from. I hope the Government will not be content to congratulate itself on making this agreement and believe that there can now be development over the whole area of South Persia and that the crisis is over.
I recall that one of the most terrible things that I saw when I was out there was that the Shatt-el-Arab, the great river of South Persia, overflowed its banks. Many of the communities which lived on the banks
of the river in their dried mud huts were drowned, and all the others were in imminent danger of drowning. Because of the complete lack of amenities and of education, they did not comprehend, when they saw the engineers sounding the flood waters, that if they did not move they would be under water themselves within a few hours. When our engineers told them of the
284
danger, they simply said "If Allah wills it …"
That is not good enough, because these are the people who have been working in what I have described as an engineering miracle in the Middle East. They are people who are asking to be educated. I saw the level of craftsmanship which young engineers had attained in the repair and maintenance shops of the refinery at Abadan, and I say that the standard of work done on the lathes and benches there compared very favourably with that done by many British craftsmen at home. I am told that when they reach the age of 21 they seem to forget everything, and it may be that when they reach that age they realise that they will have to work for the rest of their lives if they remember too much.
During the war, the Americans were driving a road from the Persian Gulf to the Soviet border, and the Persian workers saw the standard of life both of the Americans and of our own people out there. One cannot praise too highly the work of the British technicians in Abadan. I may have said this before in this House, and, if so, I will say it again, that never in my life have British women impressed me more than the girls working in hospital at Abadan who were doing a magnificent job in terrible conditions. Unless we realise that the Persians, having seen the standard of life which is possible for the West, as the Persians would say on the strength of the oil which we get from them, there is no hope for us.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), in his opening speech, said, and I believe quite rightly, that this question of the poverty of the Middle East is something that we must tackle at once. Here we have people living in shocking degradation and poverty of the worst type, at the same time seeing the rich lifeblood of Western industry flowing away from Abadan through the tankers to the rest of the world. The Persian knows the value of his oil, and he desires to have a share of that value for himself. He does not see any reason—nor do I—why the Western world should be allowed such a high standard of life on the basis of his poverty, and any agreement or arrangement with the Persians which does not take cognisance of that fact is a waste of time. It will not be a final settlement,

285
but something which can allow the West successfully to exploit the oil while no Persian worker benefits himself as a result.
We all know the background of Persian politics. Playing off the West against the East is a very dangerous policy. I believe that if we can ensure that most of the increased royalties which are to flow into the Persian coffers can be diverted for use in the improvement of Persian living standards—I do not necessarily mean merely the wage packet, but the building of new cities, and the acceptance by the Government of Persia of those responsibilities which they have successfully palmed off on the oil companies in the past, such as for education, roads, sewers and proper housing—we shall have done a very good job of work, because, otherwise, Persia could be such a trouble to the rest of the world.
We all know that if there were aggression in Persia, from either side, it could be the point at which another world war could begin. We have so much to gain—and this is a selfish point of view—from trying to ensure that, instead of the racket of years gone by continuing in the future, the Government of Persia shall have proper regard for the interests of their own people. Now that we have signed an agreement with that Government, we should make a stipulation that much of the currency
which is to flow into that country shall be used for the benefit of the people who do the work in Persia. I am sure that the Persian people would feel that that was a gesture of friendship from this country which they could reciprocate.
I have tried to show that the Government should not merely be content with the signing of this Agreement to ensure the passage of Persian oil to the West. If they are content to leave it at that, without trying to make certain that the increased currency which the Persian Government will now have at their disposal is used in the ways I have suggested, this will by no means be the end of the trouble.
7.21 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Gough: The major part of the debate has concentrated around the Mediterranean shores of the Middle East. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) for taking us to Persia, because I wish to address
286
my remarks to the House about the Persian Gulf, which is on the other side of the Mediterranean. It is a part of the world from which I have just returned after my third visit in the last 12 months. I was anxious when I went there to get the reactions of the people to the Cairo Agreement. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the agreement had immeasurably improved our relations with the Arab peoples. I purposely do not use the word "prestige" but prefer the word "relations."
Perhaps it may not be well known in this House, but the Arab people around the Persian Gulf have a very high opinion of the Egyptians. It is from Egypt that all education has flowed. I was very concerned about their divided loyalty to Egypt and to ourselves. Starting from that point, we have at this moment a unique opportunity around the headwaters of the Persian Gulf to improve that relationship.
I wonder whether the importance of the Persian Gulf to this country is fully appreciated and understood, and whether many people realise that it is from Kuwait, which only a few years ago was a mediaeval trading centre, that nearly 60 per cent. of our motor fuel in this country emanates. I wonder what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would think if that supply were suddenly cut off. The oil from the Persian Gulf is absolutely essential to this country both in peace and in war. I had it put to me the other day by somebody who is much more conversant with that part of the world than I am, that our cost of living absolutely depends upon Persian Gulf oil, and that if anything went wrong with our relationships there, as very nearly happened at Abadan, the whole of our economy and our cost of living would be affected.
I was interested to notice the tender concern shown by the hon. Member for Newton about our interests in the Abadan refinery. He may now realise the feelings of certain property owners in this country when their property was nationalised.
Mr. Lee: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could persuade the Government to give the Persian people the same terms of nationalisation as we gave to the people in this country.
Mr. Gough: I will not continue in that digression.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) is not in his place, because I want to take up one point which he made. He referred in general terms to the Arab States being very rich and very poor and completely lacking in any sense of social responsibility to their peoples. There are two States which are friendly to ourselves, the State of
Kuwait and the island State of Bahrein. That must be put on record.
Kuwait is a fantastic spectacle. It is getting an enormous revenue, but His Highness the Ruler is undoubtedly using it for the benefit of his people in providing magnificent new schools, hospitals and water distillation plants. Every year one goes there the place takes on a completely different aspect. At the same time, thousands and thousands of American cars are becoming the property of the people. That is one of the dangers one has to put up with in the modern Middle East.
I would mention the immense possibilities for our industrialists to go there and help in the development of industry. Cheap power in absolute abundance exists there in the form of natural gases, over and above the oil resources. Although a great deal has been done already, many of our industrialists would be well repaid by a visit to that part of the world to see whether they could help in the industrial development which those States are very anxious to see.
All the development to which I have alluded, and particularly the development of our friendship, depends upon three particular points. The first is our ability as a great nation, in friendship with those Arabs, to help them and the people of the Midland East—I include Israel as well—to help themselves against aggression. Iraq and one or two other States have small armies of their own which can only be used in a last-ditch defence of their country. There is no doubt of the danger of aggression in that part of the world. The second point is to help them to face up to the cold war which undoubtedly exists. The third point is to improve Anglo-American relations.
If one looks at the map for a moment one can have no doubt of the risk of
288
aggression from the northern portion of the country. This is just as possible as the aggression of Germany through Yugoslavia in the last war. Many other places in the Middle East demand our protection and that is why, now that we have moved out of Cairo, the agreement has been completed and we have a great many troops ready for redisposal, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider one matter which I raised very tentatively when first I addressed this House.
Would it not be the obvious thing to do to form an airborne division? The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South said that Cyprus was of second-rate importance, but if we had an airborne division, with the tremendous mobility that that entails, based on Cyprus or Tobruk—it does not much matter where—we could bring immeasurable confidence to all those nations, tribes and sheikhdoms in the Middle East. I have served in an airborne division, and I have seen 9,000 troops dropped in a space two miles by half a mile within six minutes, which is pretty staggering. We could in this way remove my right hon. Friend's worries and troubles, because we could quickly get back to the Suez Canal if there were any emergency. That is the only military way we could do it and I put this point forward to my right hon. Friend for his most serious consideration.
The second point I mentioned was facing up to the cold war. A great deal has been
said on this matter by the previous speaker with which I entirely agree. We must look to the education of the younger generation of the Arab States. I remember that 12 months ago, when I was in Beirut, I was approached by a few influential people, oil men and others, who told me that an English school had been mooted in Beirut. I do not know what has happened to that project. I understood that it was practically an established fact, and that it then came under the financial freeze of two years ago.
I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether that project is still in mind, because it seems to me that if we can produce a school like that in the Lebanon for the propagating of our ideas, particularly our ideas for civil servants of the future, we could encourage some of the younger generation to develop ideas

289
which we believe are right in a modern democracy.
Lastly, I wish to say a word or two about Anglo-American relations. Actually those relations on the spot are quite excellent, as they usually are, but I do not believe that they have always been very good in the years since the war. I do not think that they were very good at the time of Abadan, but I believe that it is absolutely essential, if that vital part of the world is to progress in the way we want it to, that the American people and ourselves must understand each other and that we must jointly accept the responsibility for seeing that such progress takes place.
7.31 p.m.
Mr. Frank Tomney: I can assure the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) that I share his fears about the Persian Gulf, but before I proceed with what I propose to say, I wish to refer to the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) who, I think the House will agree, is not without courage. We on this side of the House have watched his battles with the Government Front Bench with great interest, and the position as he put it today with regard to the Prime Minister's statement of last July, that the Suez Canal base is now untenable because it may be subject to hydrogen bomb attacks, strikes me as a logical one.
This debate has centred round the narrow point of the recent Cairo agreement, as we all understood that it would. Now, perhaps, the Foreign Secretary can appreciate—indeed, I think he did in years gone by—the difficulties of the Labour Government's Foreign Secretaries in regard to a situation which, quite frankly, is highly explosive. Ernest Bevin spent a long time on this project. I have a long memory on these things, and I fully realise and appreciate the patience exercised by the British Foreign Office and by British diplomacy all through the years up to the present time.
I remember, and I say this quite frankly, when British soldiers were murdered by the Jewish organisation, Irgun Zvai Leumi, and when they were stabbed in the back in the alleys and market squares of Cairo. The British soldier bore all that with fortitude and patience although at the time he was not
290
engaged in any warlike activity. That, I think, should be remembered by the protagonists of both the Egyptian and the Israeli case when it is put in this House.
The position in regard to the Egyptian Government and the Suez Canal is of such an international character that, eventually, its permanent solution will have to be undertaken on a world-wide basis by the United Nations. The Suez Canal is an international waterway. I remember, as far back as 25 years ago, Professor Laski lecturing on the freedom of the Suez Canal. It is an international waterway which is vital to trade and commerce and to defence and security, and one which should be vested in the nations of the world.
I propose to spread the argument a little further in relation to the Far East in general. The global and strategic importance of the Far East during the period of the cold war, which is still with us, is so important that the Western nations must constantly be applying their minds to the position and planning their strategy in regard to it. This Mediterranean inland sea has from ancient times provided the waterway on which empires have arisen.
The term "Middle East" is very little used. It defines the piece of land which stretches from Morocco to the Afghan border. It represents a large proportion of geographical land mass and takes in a tremendous number of people. For centuries past, continental Powers have extended their empires into the Middle East, and farther, and have used it as a line by which to link themselves together in a formidable arrangement of commercial enterprise. During the last war, the importance of the Mediterranean was preeminent, because it was from there that the allied nations struck at the soft underbelly of Hitlerite Europe.
Let us take stock of what this immense region has to offer in the defence of freedom and in the fight for democracy. It has three outstanding assets. Economically, with its mass of mineral reserves and its petroleum deposits, which are the greatest in the world, it is the largest underworld bank. It is of such importance to the West that the redefinition of our monetary commitments in that sphere have not gone without notice, and, although we quit Suez, we

291
shall have left behind since the war a chain of strategic air bases which, in time of need, can serve the Western allies should aggression ever come to that part of the world.
From the Atlas Mountains, on the one side, to Turkey on the other the area is rich in mineral deposits of lead, zinc, iron, manganese, copper and gold. Its geographical position is one of the most important in the world. The industrial Powers of the West ply their trade on the Mediterranean waterway from the Atlantic into the Red Sea to the Far East, and up the Black Sea through the Dardanelles to the very centre of Russia's factory operations and factory population.
Therefore, if we can secure the cooperation of the Arab peoples and of the Israeli peoples in a permanent system of co-operation within the framework either of U.N.O. or of N.A.T.O.—and in this respect I prefer the more tightly bound N.A.T.O. position—we shall have done much to secure our position in regard to any future aggression.
If properly lined up, the pressure in favour of freedom is tremendous. Surely, it has not passed without notice in this House that immediately pressure was put on us to quit Egypt the Enosis movement started in Cyprus. That movement was not even mentioned two years ago, but is now in the forefront of Cypriot policy. Before retreating constantly from position to position it should be realised that we have this island of ours to defend and we have to feed its 50 million inhabitants. Such a realisation should lead us to bind ourselves to alliances wherever they are to be found—and especially in the part of the world now under discussion.
Much has been said about the wealth of this area and the use to which it can be put. Short of impinging upon the sovereignty of the Arabian countries, we have no direct control over the use to which the oil revenues are put but, by encouragement and example, we can perhaps inspire the sultans, shahs and sheikhs to use those revenues in a progressive manner for the benefit of their peoples.
It is all very well to view the position of the Arabian people from our own shores. We are so used to democracy that we take it for granted elsewhere.
292
That is not the case. The system of religion in the Middle East leads naturally to despotic government. It is all that they have ever known and understood. Even with incalculable patience it will need a long time before such a situation can be changed. Changed it will have to be because militarily the area is of such strategic importance to us.
In Morocco and Iran the country could be made use of to support huge airfields, some of them with runways two miles long. The intervening territory is not, perhaps, so good. The importance of this can be realised if we cast our minds back to 1946 when, at Aizerbaijan, the Russians attempted their first sortie. The American Government's answer was short, sharp and resolute, and the Soviet quickly terminated that adventure. However, from the disorders of which one hears almost everyday—one started in Morocco yesterday—it is obvious that the cold war is progressing and is likely to progress.
In our future plans, despite the difficulties, we must bring home to the rulers of the Middle East countries the necessity for integrating themselves into a tighter defence system. The effort may need broader thinking on a much wider plane, but let us not forget that their great underground petroleum bank is the virtual life-blood of Western industry. The wheels of industry cannot turn without the oil. The oil wells of the United States are running dry; the oil in Canada is too hard to get and Venezuelan oil is also expensive.
In the Middle East there is oil in huge quantities. It is with that in mind that the narrow structure of N.A.T.O. should now combine in an economic and political association, in order to ally those countries more closely to the West and, at the same time, by example or otherwise, offer greater opportunities for uplift among the peoples of those countries.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Marshall: I am sure that the House as a whole will, in general, agree with what the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) has been saying. I wish to speak only on the question of the agreement. Before so doing I should like briefly to affirm how much I agree with the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough), with regard to what certain

293
sheikhs are doing for their people. He referred, in particular, to the large amounts being provided by Their Highnesses the Sheikhs of Kuwait and Bahrein, but he did not mention his Highness the Sheikh of Qatar. All three are doing great work at the present moment, and all three have the wish to help their people.
I should like to ask the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs the same question as my hon. Friend asked—what exactly is being done with regard to this English school in Beirut? I am convinced that such a school would be a very good thing, and if the Treasury are holding matters up I trust that the Minister will once more look into it. In this House, in March, I expressed the hope that the Foreign Secretary would go forward with the negotiations then in progress and reach a successful conclusion, and said that I would welcome a conclusion which was honourable to us, honourable to Egypt and, at the same time, would do good for both countries.
I sincerely trust that the agreement now before us will provide a basis for a new Middle East defence strategy. There is one point, however, which I do not find mentioned in the agreement. Has provision been made for the people, with or without nationality, who have served us in the Canal Zone, and who, when we depart from it, may find themselves in difficulties with the Egyptian Government? Although their numbers may indeed be small, there should be some such provision in the agreement.
As regards the picture of Middle East strategy, I feel sure that the Government of Egypt should be approached as soon as possible to see whether we can give them any assistance or help in any way by training their men as technicians in order to equip any special devices that may be necessary in the Middle East theatre. Though the argument might be adduced that the machinery for that is not at present available, I feel sure that there is available machinery to train men in that way. It would be far better to start now than to have any delay.
It is also my belief that, in order that after the signing of this agreement things in the Middle East theatre, and in Egypt in particular, should go forward in a way desired both by Egypt and ourselves, it is very necessary that Egypt should
294
realise that that state of affairs cannot come to pass unless economic stability is brought to that country. With regard to economic stability, the difficulty is that, during the time of political instability, internal capital was salted down, and certainly, advisably and naturally the flow of foreign capital into Egypt was restricted by the atmosphere generated by instability in the political arena.
That is the dilemma. It is necessary for Egypt to secure her own economy from political disturbance. During the last year, much internal capital has been salted away and there has been little foreign capital inflow into Egypt. This must now change. I believe that that calls for a very adventurous approach by the Egyptian Government, and I trust that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs will have talks with the Egyptian Government on whether some arrangement can be made, in connection with customs duties between the two countries, which will be beneficial to both, by starting the flow of capital into Egypt, at the same time forming agreements which will be of mutual help. I believe that that would be the only quick method of producing a solution to the problem.
It has always been my view that friendship between ourselves and the Middle East is of advantage to us both. Furthermore, it is one of the main pillars upon which the security and peace of the world may be built. So often in the past the situation has been bedevilled by politics, personalities and by people who have only known the country in time of war, which at no time is exactly the same thing as knowing a country in time of peace. In addition, when people have known a country only in war-time there is generally a considerable time lag between the end of the war and the various changes which take place. If we look back over the past 40 years there have been some considerable changes in our country, let alone in other countries.
One of the things that we have now got to do—and it is not so easy to do—is to put aside the many irresponsible declarations that have been made in the past, and, by so doing, sow and reap a friendship to the mutual advantage of Egypt and ourselves. Only trust, confidence and good faith can bring about the climate necessary for friendship.

295
Trust must be built on actions which not only are right but seem to be right. It is my hope that genuine friendship and understanding will prosper between the nations and that expedient political hatred which flows primarily from fear and hurt will be a thing of the past. Egypt has so much to gain from such a course, and we have so much to share—security, commerce and understanding.
I express my gratitude to the Foreign Secretary, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and to all those who have tried their level best for so long to bring about an understanding between the Middle East and ourselves. At times their efforts have not by any means been blessed with much thanks, but I believe that they are blessed by giving security and peace. For those reasons, I wish to thank the Foreign Secretary, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and all those concerned for the work that they have done.
7.54 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: My excuse for intervening in the debate is the fact that I have just returned from a visit to the Middle East. I have listened to most of this debate this afternoon and I was particularly struck by the opening remarks of the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and his reference to the Arab-Israel dispute. We all welcomed his statement that he did not despair of a settlement to end the conflict. He added, if I may say so, in a very statesmanlike way, that the approach which Her Majesty's Government must make must be a cautious one. He referred to the recent welcome settlement of Trieste, and he reminded us that in delicate international affairs a good deal more can often be achieved by private negotiation than in public.
A good deal has been said this afternoon about this regrettable Arab-Israel dispute. To my mind, it is the factor which dominates the whole of the political situation in the Middle East. Therefore, all I wish to say about the agreement with Egypt is that, while welcoming it for a number of reasons, I also regard it as having removed one of the great barriers to an improvement in the general political climate in the Middle East, because that is a subject which is not only of great human importance to all the
296
inhabitants of Israel and the Arab countries concerned, but is also a special interest to the Western world.
I have not had the advantage of visiting Israel, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). I was in Arabia, Syria, the Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. Therefore, I saw and heard for the first time the Arab point of view. However, before giving my impressions of what I heard, I should like to say how much I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) have said about the tremendous achievements of the State of Israel in the last few years. We all admire the prowess, energy, success and enthusiasm with which they have set their hand, in spite of innumerable handicaps and difficulties, to improving the material prosperity of that very small country.
I cannot help feeling that if Her Majesty's Government and the United States of America are, at the appropriate time, to play a decisive part in improving relations between the Arab countries and Israel in the hope of eventually producing a settlement, it is, above all, necessary for us in this country to approach the matter as calmly and dispassionately as we can, and with sympathy for both points of view, avoiding partisanship and prejudging the issue.
I must confess that I was appalled at finding such depth of hatred in all Arab countries towards the Jews in Israel. There is an intensity of public opinion which is difficult to appreciate until one has been there. I have no doubt that in all the Arab countries there are responsible leaders who, if they could have their way, would be willing to sit down at a peace conference with responsible leaders of Israel. But one cannot ignore the fact that there is this tremendous depth of public opinion so strongly felt not only on the frontiers of Israel, in Jordan and Syria, but as far away as Baghdad, in the centre of Iraq, and right down to the Persian Gulf.
Therefore, I agree with the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs that we cannot hope in the immediate future to seek a dramatic solution to this problem. What we must hope to do is to try to improve relations. We must hope that there will be a lessened tension and a continuous

297
reduction of frontier incidents, and we must try, by persuasion, through the United Nations and by all the means available, to seize the right opportunity to bring these parties together.
We must also realise that there may even be a danger in Her Majesty's Government appearing to take too much of an initiative. We are dealing with sovereign States and rising national sentiments. Arabia consists of proud, sensitive races, with long histories, and they do not necessarily welcome outside interference. On the other hand, I am quite sure that at heart these States will want to respond to whatever diplomatic efforts Her Majesty's Government and the United States can make to bring them together.
In approaching this problem, we must realise that there is a very real sense of fear on both sides. My right hon. Friend and others have said that a great many people in Israel live in tremendous personal fear, because of the frontier incidents that have occurred. Of course, from a purely military point of view, Israel is far stronger than all the other Arab countries put together, even if there were any possibility of their achieving military cohesion, which is very unlikely.
At the same time, there is undoubtedly a very great fear in Arab countries, especially those which are on the borders of Israel. They see developing in Israel a thriving, young and prosperous community, with great natural gifts and natural desires for expansion, and they fear that a frontier incident may lead to an expansionist, aggressive action on the part of Israel. Our objective must be to try to remove these fears. We can do so partly by removing the possibility of further frontier incidents.
The conditions at parts of the frontier are literally intolerable. My right hon. Friend mentioned some of them. I came across a place where a whole village is in Jordan, but the wells which supply its water are on the other side of the frontier, which is only 20 yards away. The villagers on the Arabian side are unable to obtain water supplies from those wells and have to go six miles in the other direction to obtain water. Imagine the provocation inherent in this situation. It is not an isolated case. On the Israel side of the border at another part of
298
the frontier, similar conditions occur in reverse that are equally exasperating to the Jews. I hope that we shall concentrate our efforts upon persuading the Frontier Commission to deal with these acute frontier conditions as rapidly as it can.
We should be deluding ourselves, however, if we did not also try to formulate a general idea for the eventual solution of this problem. We know that the Arabs regard the Jews as intruders. In fact, they talk about the Jews today as they talked about the Crusaders 700 or 800 years ago. They say, "The Crusaders occupied the land for over 100 years, but they were eventually driven out." As long as that kind of feeling persists there is not much hope of a settlement. There must be give and take on both sides. First, the Arab countries must recognise that the existence of the State of Israel is a fait accompli. On the other hand, Israel must recognise that it occupies an Arab country and that this fact has not unnaturally created resentment, tension and extreme hatred. Next, Israel should, at any rate, make an offer either to take back the refugees or compensate them.
Mr. S. Silverman: They have done that.
Mr. Fletcher: I am not saying that they have not. I do not want to be led into anything which is controversial. There is some controversy whether the Arab refugees were driven out or went out voluntarily or at the invitation of their leaders.
To be honest, I do not know the full facts about that. All I know is that it is appallingly pathetic to see, in Jordan and Syria, vast numbers of Arab refugees living in miserable conditions without any work and in temporary, makeshift camps. Their numbers are increasing at the rate of 20,000 a year. There are 75,000 of these Arab refugees just outside Jericho, where they can be seen in long queues filling their water carriers at Elisha's Well—practically their sole occupation of the day.
They are kept out of the general economy of the Arab countries for two reasons. In some cases they would be taking work away from native Arabs and, secondly, it is thought that they will one

299
day go back to Israel. But it is quite likely that many will not go back. Many of them would prefer compensation, and Her Majesty's Government and the United States could appropriately help by making substantial contributions to the cost involved.
If we are all sincere in our efforts to do what we can to bring about the end of this miserable and unhappy dispute in the Middle East, a contribution should be made by us and by the United States—and the most obvious and convenient form would be by way of financial assistance to help pay the compensation to which these refugees are entitled if they do not return. Many of them have lost their land and all their belongings.
Then, the question of Jerusalem should also be settled. Nothing in the Middle East makes one more unhappy today than to see Jerusalem, which is not only the most historic but, in many ways, the most attractive of all places in the Middle East, divided into two halves across the line of war. Through the middle of the city there runs a no man's land. If one ventures to cross the line one is liable to be shot at. I hope that sooner or later we shall be able to devise a scheme for the internationalisation of Jerusalem, although it may well be that that would not be an ideal solution to either side. At any rate, some solution must be found.
Finally, there must be a considerable frontier adjustment. This can be done only by a body under the neutral chairmanship of America, Great Britain or some other country which is acceptable to both parties. In the meantime, we must realise that there is very little hope of Israel being able to come to terms with any one Arab country. It is a question of a complete settlement or nothing. No single Arab country will take the risk of incurring the odium of being responsible for initiating negotiations. It must, therefore be a joint operation, and this, after all, will provide the most satisfactory solution.
One further point deserves to be made. The State of Israel is making rapid and tremendous strides in economic development, but it is not alone in that respect in the Middle East. It has gone much further than the Arab countries. But there is a vast potential for extension and
300
progress all over the Middle East, not only because of the oil revenues but because of the natural resources which could be developed if the money, the ability and the engineering skill were forthcoming. There is plenty of evidence that they will be forthcoming.
Much of the Middle East is now a desert, but at one time it was a vast granary. Syria was the granary of the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago. In the midst of the desert there are still to be seen vast ruins of great cities like Palmyra, because 1,500 or 2,000 years ago, it was a fertile and prosperous country and it can be made so again. I mention that for this reason. I should think in the natural course of events the strength and the material prosperity of the Arab countries will increase and that in itself should not be a matter which makes it more difficult but rather should make it easier to produce a settlement.
There is every indication that in the next two years, with this sudden accretion of wealth, the Arab countries will extend their economy maybe not at the same rate as Israel but to a considerable extent. That, I would hope, will give them every confidence in their own future, and a sufficiency of urgent domestic problems on which to concentrate to induce them to see that the policy of live and let live in the Middle East is not only possible and desirable, but the only one consonant with the great human needs of the area.
I have spoken longer than I intended, and, in conclusion, may I sum up what I was trying to say. I very much hope Her Majesty's Ministers will follow the spirit in which the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs spoke this afternoon and will take every possible opportunity, in private, by diplomatic meetings and in other directions, to try to bring these two great nations together for the mutual benefit of both.
8.13 p.m.
Mr. C. J. M. Alport: I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) will not feel in any way embarrassed if I say the speech to which we have just listened is the one which, during the whole of our proceedings this afternoon, deals with the general problem we are discussing in the best perspective. He seems to have

301
drawn the proper line of distinction between partisanship of the Israeli case on the one hand and partisanship of the Arab case on the other. I am quite certain that unless this country is able to maintain that balance in its dealings with all the affairs of the Middle East, and in particular with those of Israel and the Arab countries, we shall not succeed in producing the solution for which we hope.
I hope that those hon. Members who have preceded him—and in the main they come from the other side of the House—will realise that the extreme partisanship which they have shown from time to time, particularly in supporting the Israel case, is doing more to damage that case than it does to advance it. I believe, as the hon. Member said with perfect truth, that the initiative in the matter of providing a solution cannot really come from the Western countries or from this country—that it can only be reached slowly and over a long period of time as the result of the gradual changing of opinion in Israel and in the Arab countries which surround it. It will not come in this generation—let us not fool ourselves by thinking that it will; it can only come as a result of the passing of many generations.
Anyone who presumes to air his views to the House of Commons on the Middle East does so at his peril. Its politics are full of the unknown and of the inscrutable. The currents of intrigue run darkly, and at any moment an assassin's dagger may remove some man of power and so bring tumbling into ruin a patiently constructed policy of many years.
It is difficult even to define the Middle East, although one hon. Member on the other side of the House was bold enough to do so, because, after all, the Middle East as we think of it in one century stretches up to the foothills of the Pyrenees and in another to the gates of Vienna. It is not a geographical expression. It represents no acceptance of common political institutions. It comprehends a vast number of cultural and religious traditions and combines a host of ancient and modern hatreds with the most modern of all aspirations, towards nationhood. So we can be quite certain that any generalisation is bound to be wrong.
302
I mention these points perhaps more as a warning to myself than for any other reason. I also do so in some degree as a protest against the dogmatism which has so often characterised the discussions of these affairs in this House in the past. After all, we were told quite dogmatically that the result of the agreement which my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, recently concluded in Egypt, would be a decline in the prestige and influence of the United Kingdom amongst the Arab countries. The truth of the matter is that precisely the opposite has taken place, as anyone who has recent experience of the Middle East and of the Arab countries will know.
We have already the evidence which has come to us from the sheikhs of the Persian Gulf. We have the evidence from the recent statement of Nuri Pasha, and quite apart from that I might give the evidence of the feeling amongst the small Arab community in Eastern Africa. The long conflict between ourselves and Egypt was a source of great anxiety to them and a strain upon their continuing loyalty and service to the British Crown. Now that that conflict has been resolved, they themselves feel that the prestige and position of the United Kingdom has risen rather than declined.
The hon. Member for Islington, East is absolutely right when he says that whatever may be our personal and individual views on Egypt—and let us be quite frank, it is often based on a short sojourn in Cairo during the war, in very artificial circumstances—Egypt is looked upon, and has been looked upon for many generations as a great country in the Moslem scheme of affairs. It is from the Azhar university there that a great deal of Islamic culture penetrates down the east coast of Africa, out across Arabia to Persia and along the north coast of Africa.
Let none of us, therefore, be too certain that we know precisely what is going to be the result of the policy now being followed. The truth of the matter is that the first object of the agreement has been achieved. It has reduced the tension between ourselves and Egypt. It has not only raised and increased our influence with our traditional friends who exist in that part of the world, but it has brought about what I think is perhaps a still more important result.

303
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery), at the recent Conservative Party conference at Blackpool, welcomed with great enthusiasm the decision of Her Majesty's Government to undertake long-term military commitments in Europe. Indeed, I should have thought that most Members in the House would agree that our ability to undertake that commitment has enabled us to maintain the unity of the Western world in the face of the threats and destructive tactics on the part of the Russians and of Communism.
I may be wrong, but I should think it would have been impossible for any Foreign Secretary to have accepted a permanent commitment of four divisions in Europe when, at the same time, he knew that he had more or less a commitment of two to three divisions on the Suez Canal; and that it was only as a result of his knowledge that a solution was to be achieved for the Suez Canal problem that he was able to make such an immense contribution to the maintenance of the stability of the Western world and the security of our country.
Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North will not want to have it both ways. I do not think for one moment that he could have had all he wanted in respect of the Suez Canal and all he wants from Western Europe at the same time. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will be consoled in knowing that by losing one battle in the Middle East he has gained a victory for the policy in Western Europe for which he has stood with loyalty and vigour for so long.
Mr. S. Silverman: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the Foreign Secretary felt compelled to get some agreement with the Egyptians in order to enable him to rearm the Germans?
Mr. Alport: No, I did not say that and I did not mean it, and the hon. Gentleman knew that before he got up.
There are other advantages. The financial advantage is perhaps small, but there will undoubtedly be a saving as a result of the agreement. However, there is the other advantage, the improvement in the trading relationship between ourselves and Egypt in particular, but with the Arab world in general, which will result from this agreement. After all,
304
Egypt has been a traditional market of ours over a considerable period. In some degree we have been dependent for the prosperity of the cotton industry in Lancashire upon Egyptian cotton. Now the obstacles and difficulties which existed in respect of that trade will be removed.
What is more—and I hope this will be regarded by the House as being an important point—we shall be able to pick up the long tradition of peaceful cultural contacts between this country and the Arab world. On both sides we have made contributions to the progress of civilisation, ourselves in respect of the Arab civilisation, the Arabs in respect of our Western civilisation. It has been a two-way movement of ideas, of art forms, of literature and, in some degree, of science. One of the greatest advantages is that this exchange can now be resumed.
These are some of the concrete advantages of the agreement, but I suggest to my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State that the real advantage will not be enjoyed by this country unless the new situation which has been created in the Middle East is used to produce a new pattern of policy for the United Kingdom in respect of the Middle East generally. As I have said, we have been able, as the result of the agreement, to release the log jam which has so far held up the expansion and alteration of our policy in that part of the world.
In the first place, it must clearly be the object of our policy that we should carry out the effective redeployment of the Forces that have been released. I should like to associate myself both with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett) and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) in asking Her Majesty's Government once again to look at the advantages which would accrue to us of including Eastern Africa as one of the bases to replace the Suez Canal.
My right hon. and gallant Friend said that he could not find the reason for the abandonment of Mackinnon Road. I do not know the inner history of the negotiations that went on at that time, but I suggest that the evacuation of the Suez Canal area and
of Egypt was advised by the General Staff immediately after the war; that in fact it was the view of

305
the Chief of the Imperial General Staff at that time that an alternative supply base should be developed in East Africa at Mackinnon Road; that plans were undertaken to that end, that the work was put into effect and then suddenly, for reasons which were partly due to the conflict of personalities and partly due to sudden decisions made under the stress of the Palestine situation, the whole new pattern of redeployment was abandoned.
If that is the case I feel that there are strong arguments now for looking at the project once again. Because there is one vital thing which, from a military point
of view, has to be borne in mind. It is all very well for the War Office to argue that it is easy to deploy by air troops stationed in this country in any part of the Middle East, the Far East or Africa. Yet the truth of the matter is that those troops will not be of any use from an operational point of view until they are acclimatised, and they cannot be acclimatised under a period of at least two months.
In my view it is not fair to the troops, it is impractical and it is an unfair military risk to take a battalion from, let us say, my own constituency, Colchester, or Aldershot in the middle of winter, reequip them in tropical kit, and suddenly send them out by air in a period of 24 hours to operate either in the jungle or in the desert. Therefore, once again, I say that I hope that at this time—because this is the time of opportunity—Her Majesty's Government will look again at the possibility of ensuring that a permanent garrison, a permanent trained reserve, acclimatised to tropical and desert and jungle conditions, is available somewhere in Eastern and Central Africa.
I am certain that one of the most important aspects of our policy is to try to ensure that there is no further penetration of Russian Communism south into the Arab countries, into the heart-country of Persia, down into that vast land bridge between Europe and Asia. I agree with hon. Members opposite that one of the ways in which we can prevent that penetration is by assisting in the economic development of these countries. I am quite certain that in the case of Egypt, for instance, the Liberation Government will only remain in power if they can produce the social improvements, the
306
higher standard of living for which the fellahin look at the present time.
Although I do not agree completely with the thesis of the hon. Member for Islington, East, I am certain that the same applies in the long run in Persia, Transjordan, Africa and elsewhere. I feel, therefore, that just as in days centuries ago it was our policy to try to ensure the maintenance of our point of view rather by the use of money and subsidies and financial support than by direct use of troops placed in strategic positions, we should follow that policy not only to maintain our political interests but with the added incentive that by using our money in that way we can ensure improvement in the standard of living throughout this vital part of the world.
I believe that we should go further than the hon. Member for Islington, East suggested, and that what we want is something parallel to the Colombo Plan to cover the Middle Eastern States. I am sure that those rich sheikhdoms would be prepared to associate themselves with a plan of that sort. I believe that that can be used to inspire the policies and points of view of many of the Arab territories, and that it might provide an entry into the community of nations of the Middle East for Israel, which would be able to make such an obvious practical contribution to a scheme of that sort.
But we must not do that as a result of pressure from the United Kingdom or the United States. It may be that the third object of our policy, which is the military integration of the Middle East, will come about, but, as with the economic integration, the military integration must only come about as a result of the voluntary act and policy of Middle East States themselves. The initiative must come from them.
It would be wrong for us to suppose that we can bring Transjordan or Iraq or Egypt into a Middle East defence community or, for that matter even into a Middle East Colombo Plan if the initiative does not come from them. I am certain that the desire is there below the surface, provided that their suspicions are set at rest. If the initiative comes from them we shall obtain the results that we want in a way which will have a greater permanence and more lasting

307
value, because it will be based on the voluntary wishes of the Middle Eastern people as a whole.
We must not forget that the nationalism that we are experiencing in Africa and in Asia and in Europe is perhaps at its most acute in the Middle East. We cannot ignore that factor. We must pay the respect to it which a movement of that sort deserves. We must give the understanding without which we shall certainly fail in our opportunities to influence and perhaps lead those countries. I think, therefore, that this series of agreements which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has concluded in respect of a number of Middle East countries provides that springboard for a new policy, a new development of our relations with the Middle Eastern countries generally.
I should think that the basis of that policy would be to aim at ensuring not only that there is no further penetration south of Russian Communism, and at improving the economic conditions, but also at increasing the cultural contacts between the Western world, and this country in particular, and the countries of the Moslem Middle East. In relation to that, one of the features which I welcome most of all in the agreement just made is contained in the exchange of letters towards the end in which the Egyptian Government undertake to pay to those British servants of the Egyptian Government, who were summarily dismissed from their employment as an act of political retribution, the compensation which they deserve.
It is they, the men who have worked over there, far more than the soldiers, who have really provided the basis for the friendship which has been enabled so quickly to blossom out between ourselves and Egypt after the obstacle of the Canal Zone conflict has disappeared. It is they in the long run who will provide the advisers and the help, in particular with great projects like the Nile irrigation scheme. They have served with the Egyptian and Transjordan Governments and have worked with the people of those countries as equals. These are the people on whom the prestige of this country in the Middle East is really based.
It is along those lines of influencing and of helping that we shall be able to maintain our relationships and our position
308
in the Middle East. I have always maintained that Glubb Pasha and 40-odd officers of the Arab Legion and perhaps £5 million did far more for the British position in the Middle East than 80,000 troops on the Canal and £50 million spent on maintaining them. It is on those lines of traditional policy, traditional right back to the time of Elizabeth I, that we shall find for the future, in our relations with the Middle East, the best assurance of the continuing friendship of those countries.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) spoke of the importance of developing cultural contacts between the Western countries and the Islamic world. If he will allow me to say so, I am sure not only that he is right but that within that lies a great part of the correct solution of the whole Middle Eastern problem.
Inevitably, there have been many references in this debate to the ill-will felt by Arab countries towards the State of Israel. My own limited experience, so far as it went, when I travelled in some of those countries, led me to form the opinion that this ill-will towards Jewish people was only one example—though far and away the most outstanding example—of several hostilities felt by Arab peoples towards other communities; for example, the partly French and generally Europeanised community to be found in the Lebanon, towards Armenians, towards Copts and various other groups, all of whom had this in common—that they were more sophisticated, more in touch with the West than are the Islamic countries as a whole.
I believe that there is no ultimate remedy for the hostility between Israel and the Arab communities other than the bridging of the profound cultural gap that at present exists between them. In the Arab nations we have a community united by the fierce and majestic structure of Islam, a community able to look back over periods in history when they were not merely the equals but the superiors of Europe in science and in literature. Indeed, I believe it is historically true that at the time of the Crusades the Arab populations at that time in possession of the Levant regarded, and rightly regarded, the Crusaders as invading barbarians with a lower standard of culture.

309
In several periods of history that has been the case but what has happened in recent times, partly, I suppose, through the industrialisation of Europe, partly through the depressing effect of Ottoman rule over Arab countries, has been that this whole section of mankind has got culturally out of step with the rest of the world. So we have a community uneasy in itself, irritated with the rest of the world, a community which, looking back on its history, naturally will never regard itself as primitive or backward, but is painfully aware that in recent times it has in certain material respects fallen behind the rest of the world.
That is why, if one travels in that part of the world, one sees ceaselessly the contrasts—the contrasts of people, some of them most learned, sophisticated and cultured and others living in great poverty and squalor, the contrast of all material things, the contrast of the latest devices of 20th century science with the most primitive methods of agriculture.
So long as those contrasts persist, so long as the Arab countries feel that they are, in effect, out of step with the cultural development of the rest of mankind, we shall have this general unease of which hostility to the State of Israel is one, and the most striking, manifestation. It is an obvious enough deduction from that to say that the object of policy should be to give whatever assistance a Western nation can give in helping the Arab nations to take their rightful place in the 20th century.
That is not an easy job to do. One cannot pick up culture in lumps and hand it out to other parts of the world. If one does so too aggressively, or too patronisingly, one is likely to defeat one's own ends and to be met with hostility. It seems to me that it is true of foreign policy as a whole that successful foreign policy does not consist in the main of every now and then bringing off a striking diplomatic coup. It consists, surely, in realising what is the major historical necessity of the time; of patiently watching for every opportunity of doing what that historical necessity requires and, when an opportunity arises, to use it to the full.
There have been several references in the debate to the desirability of favouring the project of an English school at Beirut. That is one example of the way
310
in which, as the hon. Member for Colchester said, we can link up Western culture and the Islamic world. It is one of the ways in which we can help the Arab nations to take the place which, by historical right, should be theirs in the 20th century. But, of course, it is only one way and we should not conceive of this task too narrowly. We ought to conceive of it, not as an opportunity to try to promote specifically English culture, English ideas and the English way of life, but as the linking of Western and Islamic cultures.
As the years go on other opportunities of that kind will offer. If the various agencies to be found within the machinery of United Nations are properly used, they also will give opportunities where, without patronage and without exciting hostility, the West can stretch out a helping hand to the section of mankind which we have been discussing tonight. I think that it is by the steady pursuit of a policy of that kind that, in the end, we are likely to get a more satisfactory relation between the Arab nations and the rest of the world.
I believe that the solution of the present troubles between the Arab nations and Israel is part of that general problem. We should do everything we can to make the Arabs aware that there is open to them in the 20th century a rich and developing world, where the fertile and vigorous intellect which
has characterised their nations in the past can profit with dignity in the future. The more we can do that the more they will realise that it is not worth their while to waste their energies on a squalid and unnecessary struggle with the State of Israel.
If we look on it from the viewpoint of common sense, there is nothing whatever in the economics, politics or geography of the matter to make this conflict in the least necessary. It springs from old prejudices and fears, and, as I say, from this feeling on the part of many of the Islamic nations that they are out of step with the rest of mankind. I have suggested that there are ways in which, cautiously and without patronage, nations like our own can help to resolve the problem. Now that we have an agreement with Egypt, and can think more in terms of a constructive policy towards the Arab world as a whole, I trust that this aspect of the matter may be borne

311
in mind by those responsible for directing policy.
8.44 p.m.
Mr. Eric Johnson: I am grateful for this opportunity of making a brief contribution, for the first time, to a debate on foreign affairs, because in September I had the opportunity of paying a visit to Israel, and I took advantage of my visit to learn something of the many difficulties and problems facing that country.
I thoroughly agree with what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), about the astonishing achievements of Israel. I had not been to Israel for about 30 years, and I found it impossible to compare the position in 1920 with what I found in 1954. I am sure it is true to say that the Arabs who have remained in Israel, and many have, have also shared those benefits. Many Arabs who left Israel, some voluntarily and some otherwise, are jealous of those who stayed behind, because the conditions enjoyed by the latter are surprisingly good.
I came back convinced that there is for us an immense amount of good will in the State of Israel today. I happened to be there on 21st September when our offer was made to the representatives of the Arab States of our good offices to bring the two countries together and to reopen negotiations between Israel and the Arab League. That certainly made a tremendously favourable impression in Israel. It gave great satisfaction. I hope that both sides will take advantage of the offer. For my part, I believe that it would be a good thing if we gave both sides a reminder from time to time that the offer is still open and if we tried to push them into getting together and doing something about it. We must take a lead in the matter.
Despite the satisfaction, there is undoubtedly a fear in Israel that we are more concerned with our friendship for the Arabs than for them. There is no doubt, too, that they are anxious, quite understandably, about our agreement with Egypt in respect of the Suez Canal base. Perhaps they are unduly anxious. I am not so disturbed as some people
312
may be about the threats which have been made in the Egyptian papers and by Egyptian politicians. I take the view, which may be optimistic, that the bark of these people is considerably worse than their bite, and that if the Egyptians know what is good for them they will not start anything against Israel.
I should like to know whether or not it is a fact that the terms of the 1950 declaration would bring us in on the side of Israel in the event of that country being attacked by any of the Arab States. I am not clear on that point. What I hope more than anything is that this debate, and especially perhaps the few speeches that we have yet to hear, will add to what has already been done by Her Majesty's Government to reassure the Israelis about the results of our leaving the Canal Zone base.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave them a reassurance when he said on 19th October that we shall be able to move forward to a general relaxation of tension in the Middle East. We all hope that that is so. I believe that it will be so, but I think that the Israelis would prefer something rather more concrete in the form of a reassurance.
Of course, it will take a good deal of time before tension is relaxed. It will take a lot of time and patience to put an end to these quarrels. Meantime, I am very disturbed about some of the activities
which are still going on. I am less disturbed by reports in the Press
and speeches made by politicians than I am by one incident in particular which was reported last week to have taken place in Israel near the Egyptian frontier. I refer to the blowing up of the water pipeline leading to the Negeb.
I look on that as being most serious because Israel already feels that she has a grievance about the inaction of the Security Council in respect of the Syrian obstruction to the plan to get water from the Jordan and bring it down to the Negeb. This plan would undoubtedly be of immense benefit to Israel from many points of view. I have had it explained to me, but I am not a water engineer. As I understand it, and I have been told about it only from one side, the plan would do no harm to anybody and least of all to Syria, which is causing the obstruction and, anyway, has plenty of water of its own.

313
I am given to understand that if the water plan is put into effect it will enable Israel to settle another 1½ million people in the Negeb. I am convinced from what I have heard and seen there that Israel does not want to extend her own frontiers. I do not think she has any wish at all to extend her territory; what she wants to do is to make the best possible use of the land within her present frontiers, and to do that she must have water, and water she means to have. I am convinced that the most serious risk of trouble in the Middle East today between Israel and her neighbours is to be found in any interference with Israel's attempts to get water, whether it is by obstructing the plan I have described or, even more serious, by sabotage like that which occurred last week. We ought to urge the United Nations to take much stronger action than they have hitherto done.
I am sure it is the earnest hope of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that the relaxation of the tension to which the Foreign Secretary looks forward will enable a stout-hearted and virile nation like Israel to make an effective contribution to the defence of the Middle East alongside her Arab neighbours. When all is said and done, apart from our own Armed Forces, there are really only two bodies of troops in the Middle East which are really efficient in battle, and they are the Israeli Army and the Arab Legion, and what we need to do is to get them both on the same side. That ought to be the aim of our policy.
Suggestions about alternative bases have been made. I have often wondered whether thought has been given to asking Israel to consider the possibility of Haifa being used as an advance base. That would have many great advantages. It is true that Israel has already offered free port facilities to Jordan in Haifa and has offered a right of free passage from Egypt to Jordan through the Negeb. If a more complete arrangement could be made for allowing Jordan free passage to a Mediterranean port, I believe that in due course it would be possible to persuade the Arabs to permit the reopening of the oil pipeline to Haifa. It is a tragedy to see the great oil refinery at Haifa running at quarter capacity, and running on oil from Venezuela at that. There could be no more ridiculous situation.
For my part, I do not despair of a settlement. I do not despair of again
314
seeing oil flowing from Iraq to the Mediterranean at Haifa. After all, I do not think that three years ago anyone would have given much for the British chances of operating the oil refinery at Abadan again. I do not want to say any more on that subject, but the fact remains that Abadan is operating again today.
I have deliberately refrained from saying anything about the very controversial matters which have been mentioned, such as the Arab refugees, the border incidents, the passage of ships through the Suez Canal, and so on. I have views on those subjects, but I feel that in many ways public discussion in this House serves, if anything, rather to fan than to quench the ill-feeling between the Israelis and the Arab States.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will find it possible to say something about some of the points which I have raised. In case he feels that to say anything about those matters and some of the other controversial matters which have been raised would be unwise, I would merely express the hope that we shall be told that the Government are doing their utmost to bring about negotiations between Israel and her Arab neighbours by those tried and excellent methods of diplomacy which were so successful in bringing about a settlement between Italy and Yugoslavia over Trieste. I am sure the old method of diplomacy is the right way in which to conduct that sort of affair, and I hope that it will be tried and proved successful as between Israel and the Arabs.
Finally, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—and I mean no disrespect to the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs—is personally using his own very great influence, and it is very great, with Egypt and with the Arab States to induce them to reach a settlement which will bring peace and prosperity to the Middle East.
8.56 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Dalton: We have had an extremely valuable debate today, and a number of the speeches, not least the last two—one from each side of the House, from my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) and from the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), who spoke with a very great knowledge of these matters and from

315
recent observations on the spot—seemed to me to have added very much to the value of the debate.
The debate started with, and, so to speak, was hung upon the peg of, the Suez Agreement, but, in fact, there has not been much discussion of the details of the Suez Agreement, although I am sure that we have all studied the White Paper as part of our homework. I am not going into detail on it myself at all, but I was very sorry that I was not in the House when the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) spoke, because he, I think almost alone of the speakers today, did tackle that agreement. According to a report which has been furnished to me of a number of his observations—I carefully arranged for this in view of our past association and of our, I hope, mutual esteem—he appears to have put a number of extremely penetrating questions, which I hope have been duly noted for answer by Ministerial spokesmen. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman put very penetrating questions on the political, financial and strategic aspects of the Suez Agreement, or so I am informed.
The Suez Agreement registers very great concessions to Egypt, and many of us are disappointed to find that it coincides with—I do not say registers—no comparable concessions by Egypt to us in respect of the admittedly illegal stoppage of vessels passing through the Canal. I must pursue that a step further, following up what has been said on this subject before, and particularly in view of the reception that was given by both sides of the House to the very striking speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), who was loudly applauded on both sides when he asked why it was that Her Majesty's Government, having admitted that the Egyptian procedure is totally illegal and unjustified, are not speaking more strongly about it and giving a more active appearance of indignation and determination to have the matter put right.
The Foreign Secretary intervened at a certain stage of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), and said, in a tone of almost impotent resignation, "It
316
is illegal, but what next?" Are we really not to have anything further said to us by the Government about this illegal blockade? I ask this because I remember that in 1951—I think it was—before the change of Government, the right hon. Gentleman was particularly indignant about one aspect of this illegal Egyptian blockade which has so far not been mentioned except by the hon. Member for Blackley. The right hon. Gentleman was exceedingly indignant regarding the stoppage by Egypt of British oil bound for the Haifa refinery. The hon. Member for Blackley dealt with this most outrageous aspect of this Egyptian illegality.
Mr. E. Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. I merely referred in my speech to my hope that the Haifa pipeline might once again contain oil. I did not say anything about ships in the Suez Canal.
Mr. Dalton: In that case the hon. Member and I are supplementing instead of repeating each other's arguments.
It is equally outrageous that the pipeline should be blocked over land as it is that their lawful routes across the sea are blocked for ships bearing British oil to a largely British-owned refinery at Haifa. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to recover some of that pristine indignation he showed when this matter was first raised some years ago, and when he sat over here.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said that the Egyptians were stopping Israeli ships or had stopped them, regardless of their cargoes, and were stopping other ships regardless of their nationality if they carried what the Egyptians, in their wisdom, deemed to be strategic goods for Israel. The right hon. Gentleman spoke specifically of oil. It was he who reminded us, in mentioning Haifa, that the Egyptians are presuming to prevent British oil passing through the Canal for Israeli ports. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will have something more emphatic to say about that when he winds up.
He will, I am sure, as an acute and experienced Parliamentary observer, have sensed that there is deep concern in the House about the risk—admittedly there is a risk and we have to try to evaluate it in the light of the evidence—of a second

317
war between Israel on the one hand and some of the Arab States on the other. Before I sit down I shall urge the right hon. Gentleman to take a rather firmer and clearer line in relation to this risk. But I will first say something more about the Arab refugees.
Every person, not merely in this House but wherever he be, who has even the faintest glimmerings of the life lived now by this mass of Arab refugees, must be profoundly shocked and horrified in his most humane sentiments. This is a dreadful legacy and is the most shocking element of the whole Middle Eastern situation. Quite apart from any views on the other topics which we are debating tonight, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government, and of all Governments even remotely concerned, to do their best gradually to dissipate this seething mass of degradation and squalor which is so clearly visible to all who travel in those parts in the Middle East.
The Minister of State said today that it was getting worse and not better. In spite of all the efforts of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency we have only succeeded in settling, he said, about 9,000 refugees in any permanent and satisfactory way since the start of that Agency's work. I forget the total which the hon. Gentleman gave—it was very large—and perhaps he could tell me what it was.
Mr. Nutting: It was 900,000.
Mr. Dalton: Only 9,000 out of 900,000, that is, only 1 per cent. of these unfortunate people have been settled in any permanent and satisfactory way. That is a terrible indictment of everybody who is responsible in any degree for the continuance of this state of affairs. I take it that all members of the United Nations agree that something should be done, but not enough vigour and energy seems to be devoted to doing it.
These people must be resettled. But resettled where? Surely it is a most cruel thing to try to delude these poor people who are suffering so much by presenting to them some political slogan which suggests that there is any hope or any practical possibility of their all being resettled in the State of Israel.
That is a cruel delusion, and I should like to see steps taken to dispel it with
318
whatever emphasis is proper. I do not want to say anything which would cause further bitterness, but it should be made clear that that is a totally impracticable suggestion, and, until that is out of the way, we shall not get effective co-operation to settle the refugees elsewhere.
There is literally no room for the whole mass of these people in Israel, but only, at the best, for a very small minority of them. Since they left six years ago and became refugees, their places have been filled by the immense immigration into Israel, and, to a considerable extent, the places of those unhappy Arab refugees from Israel have been taken by equally unhappy Jewish refugees from Arab countries.
They have come, and this exchange of population, as it is sometimes rather coldly called—although this phrase often covers great human tribulation—has taken place and cannot be reversed. Therefore, I should like to see some official statement agreed upon, perhaps through the U.N.R.W.A.—I do not dogmatise as to how—indicating that it is really quite impracticable to contemplate the resettlement of more than a small minority of these unfortunate people in the State of Israel.
I should have thought that it was quite clear, if we look at the barest elements of geography, that the place where the great majority of these people could most happily, easily and satisfactorily be settled would be in the wide lands, still undeveloped, of the Arab States. May I offer a geometrical observation? I am told by those who
have worked it out that the total area of the eight Arab States is more than 200 times that of Israel. I am told that the State of Israel is barely more than 12,000 square miles in area, and that the Arab States have more than 2,500,000 square miles.
It is quite true that much of the Arab States is desert, but so is much of Australia, and so is a large part of this pocket handkerchief of a country which we call Israel. I use that phrase to show the thing pictorially. It is a small place on the map, and more than half of it, including the Negeb, is stony, dry and sun-parched. I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman, like myself, has seen it. It is not a country in which I would be eager to settle. It is, therefore, quite

319
idle to say that we can take all these people from the Arab refugee communities and resettle them in the tiny land of Israel.
If it is true, as I believe, that the great majority of them must seek, in the Arab states, any happy future, it is surely desirable that we should co-operate to the full—financially, and with economic advice and so on—in the refertilising of large areas in the Arab States, which can, indeed, be so treated if we have the will. In ancient times, Mesopotamia—the land between the two great rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates—was very fertile, well-watered, heavily populated. So it could be again today. There is no technical or engineering problem there which we could not solve.
I leave this argument at this point, repeating the hope that we shall try to clear away the delusion, fostered by the propagandists in some of the Arab countries, that the refugees can yet find their way back to Israel—and urging the Government to do more than they have done, and to urge others concerned—including the Arab States themselves, which have been a little hesitant in the matter—to do more to get rapid, large-scale development and irrigation, land settlement and so forth, in suitable Arab territories.
The party opposite have recently invented a new slogan—in some contexts not a bad one—"Invest in success." We could do that on a great scale in some of the Arab countries. We should certainly be investing in success, not only in terms of material development but in the removal of one of the obstacles to peace. So long as this idea prevails that, somehow or other, the refugees will be able to find their way back to Israel, there is a standing temptation and invitation to warmongers. But, we should be investing not only in successful material development but in human welfare and in laying the foundations of peace in the Middle East.
I should now like to turn to Israel, the Arab States, and the supply of arms. When this matter was mentioned earlier I gathered that the Foreign Secretary undertook to give us more information about this. It may be a diplomatic fiction, but the Arab States say they are still at war with Israel. It is, indeed, true that there is no diplomatic relation-
320
ship established between the Arab States and Israel, that there is a trade boycott greatly damaging both sides, and a complete lack of effective contact on any plane. The difference is that, whereas the Arab States say that they are in a state of war with Israel, the Israelis say that they are in a state of peace with the Arab States.
That is a difference not without importance. Indeed, the Israeli representative at the United Nations has this month proposed, on behalf of his country, a series of non-aggression pacts with the several Arab States. I gather that that has not been very well received, but I still hope that something of that kind may be possible, if only to break the deadlock involved in the present absence of diplomatic relations.
What is the position? The Arab States say that they are at war with Israel; Israel says she is at peace with the Arab States. We—and the Americans also—are supplying arms in larger total quantities, as I understand, to the people who say they are at war with their neighbours, namely the Arab States, than to the people who say they are at peace with their neighbours—Israel. If that is so, and I know that the Foreign Secretary will deal with this, it seems very paradoxical and unjustifiable that the people who are thinking and talking of war should get a larger quantity of the implements of war than those who are talking—and, we hope, also thinking—primarily of peace. It seems to me that, until we get a settlement, it would be desirable for both sides to get nothing much more potent in the way of arms than a few truncheons and pistols.
But if we must go beyond that, I hope that we shall, at any rate, be assured that the Israelis will get the same supply of arms as the aggregate of the Arab States. The Arab League, which I have always regarded as something of a diplomatic figment, but which exists, is for many purposes simply a united front against the State of Israel. However, the right hon. Gentleman will, as he promised, say more about the arms.
Several of the speakers in today's debate have quoted statements by Egyptian Ministers and statements made in the Egyptian official Press. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham,

321
South (Mr. H. Morrison) quoted a number of them. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and other speakers have done the same. If they are to be taken literally and at their full value, they are pretty serious. I am not going to read them all again, but let me re-quote a phrase or two so that the Foreign Secretary will have them in mind, although I am sure he knows them all very well.
Take this example:
"The artificial State of Israel must be erased from the map of the world before there can be peace."
I would not send arms to people who talk like that.
"As for the problem of Palestine, that is a problem which can be solved only by force. That force will not be achieved until the Suez Canal is freed."
Those are the words of the "Dancing Major," the Minister for National Guidance, while the Suez negotiations were going on. He went on:
"The Egyptian Army is unable to fight as long as the British Army separates it from its bases … with the freeing of our economic and military forces an end will be put to foreign occupation throughout the Middle East."
Do we or do we not attach any importance
to what these people say? Do we or do we not attach any importance to what is said by those who hold high office in Egypt, such as the Prime Minister of Egypt and the Minister for National Guidance, and what is said in their official newspaper? If we attach no importance to what they say, why are we signing treaties with them?
We recognise their good faith and sincerity to the extent of signing treaties with them. In that case, we cannot discard these statements quite as lightly as some speakers have done—even the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs when the matter was hinted at during his speech. It appears to me, therefore, that all this tendency and talk in Egypt should lead to very great economy indeed in the supply of arms to these gentlemen. That would seem to me a very simple and prudent maxim.
Let me now say a word about the 1950 Declaration. This Declaration, jointly signed by the United States, the French and ourselves—I have it here, but I need not read it again—gives certain assurances to the effect that if there were any threat of violation of the frontiers set up
322
under the armistice arrangements, or any threat of the use of force, the three signatories would regard themselves as bound, both under the United Nations and also by this special arrangement outside the United Nations, to take action to deal with it.
But, as has been said by those who have quoted the exact words earlier today, there is much less exactitude and force of phrase in this Declaration than there is in a number of the bilateral agreements which we have made with several of the Arab States, in such phrases as:
"… will come immediately to their aid as an ally in defence of collective security."
It has been said that the Israelis are apprehensive because they feel that the assurance given to them by the three Western Powers in the event of their being attacked by the Arab States is much less firm, much less quickly operative and much less automatic than were the undertakings given by us—without the United States and France being involved—to Iraq and Jordan—[An HON. MEMBER: "And Libya."]—and Libya; although Libya is further away and does not matter for this purpose.
We should seek to remedy that sense of inequality and uncertainty in the minds of the Israelis, which, on the actual wording of the text, seems to some extent to be justified. That uncertainty may also exist in the minds of certain of the Arab States, and it is very important to remove that. I should like us to hold the balance absolutely level between Israel on
the one hand and the Arab States on the other. I should like the Foreign Secretary to consider whether it would not be wise to see that a new, clear and firm declaration was made which would leave Egypt and the other Arab States in no doubt at all that if they attempted to use force against Israel it would immediately be met by force on the part of those of us who signed the 1950 Declaration.
Equally, it should be laid down that, if Israel made an attack upon any of the Arab States, it would also immediately be met and resisted by force on the part of the three signatories. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether that would not have a pacifying effect and would not give a certain amount of reassurance throughout the Middle East. On the one hand, it would remove Israeli

323
apprehensions that they were being unequally and unfairly treated and, on the other hand, it would remove from the minds of certain Arab leaders the thought they may be harbouring that they may be able to get away with a second round without our intervention.
I support what was said by the hon. Member for Blackley, namely, that the offer we have already made to use our good offices in a completely impartial manner as between Israel and the Arab States whenever it seemed useful and helpful, could be renewed so that the two sides could be brought together for a sensible and rational discussion of concrete problems.
I shall say only a few words about bases. Various hon. Members have spoken about possible alternatives. I shall not speak of Cyprus, that is for another day; but I have occasionally thought about Gaza. The Egyptians are at Gaza, but it is not part of Egypt. Many Arab refugees are around Gaza. Whatever bases we have in the Eastern Mediterranean, we shall have to keep relatively small numbers of troops, stores and equipment in each. Could not we have some at Gaza? That would have the advantage of giving productive employment to a number of Arab refugees who are now mouldering there.
Haifa is another possibility which has often been mentioned. I do not want to pry into too many secrets—I see that the right hon. Gentleman has got my point in one—but would it not be useful to have some naval installations at Haifa? The Israelis have been very good about Haifa, and they have offered Jordan a free passage to it and a free zone in the port. Could not we keep that in our mind? I am sure it has been thought about.
And speaking from my personal travels and observations, I ask whether we could not do something more in the Gulf of Akabah and have a sort of joint base including both Akabah and Elat? There are only some palm trees, growing very nicely, between the two, and I think we might arrange something by agreement with the parties concerned, thereby linking them at the one point where they both touch the Red Sea. We have got a few troops there now. Could we not have a few more?
324
I hope we are going to try for some additional bases to contain not a big number but a reasonable number of troops and their equipment and stores in several parts of the Middle East. We want to find bases where we will have a welcome from the local inhabitants. That is most desirable, and I hope not impossible.
This debate, as I have said, has been exceptionally useful and a high proportion of really interesting speeches made from both sides of the House have contributed to our understanding of these difficult problems. The debate will have done good if it demonstrates the anxiety that is felt in the House regarding the present situation in the Middle East. If it strengthens the Government's will to tackle this problem with more vigour than they have hitherto shown and a greater sense of urgency, so that the problem will not be put somewhere near the bottom of the list, we shall have taken a great step forward. We do not want to hear the Government say again: "It is quite true that the Egyptians are being very illegal but we cannot do anything about it."
I urge the Foreign Secretary to give the Middle East a very high priority in the coming months, and if out of a close and concentrated attack, which, of course, must be carried out in consultation with other Powers, including the United States, France, the Arab States and Israel, there is achieved something which will relax tension, sweep away impossible solutions and concentrate upon possible solutions, then we shall advance a stage further towards not only peace but real and genuine prosperity based upon enduring factors in that troubled area of the world.
9.28 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Anthony Eden): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) has just made what I must frankly admit is a very constructive contribution to the extremely difficult problems which we have been discussing this afternoon. Both his speech and that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who opened the debate for the Opposition, were of the order of those who are trying to help to find solutions

325
to problems with which they have been familiar for many years, as I am familiar at the present time.
Let me first say this to the right hon. Gentlemen, that there is no question whatever of these problems being neglected or put at the bottom of a list in our preoccupations. I can assure the right hon. Gentlemen, and the House, that now that for a moment we have what I hope is a breathing space from our European problems—and I hope Her Majesty's Opposition will agree with that—this problem, and particularly the Arab and Israeli problem, will be very near indeed to the top of the list. But it is one which—I know nobody will take offence—it is easy to feel emotional about and not so easy to find practical solutions for.
In what I shall say to the House tonight I shall try to take, as far as I can, a number of the points that have been raised in the debate on both sides of the House. I cannot cover all the field, because any number of detailed points were mentioned, but I will take care that those which are not dealt with in my speech will be dealt with by written answer in the House, because I think that the quality of this debate has been exceptional, and the House is entitled to feel that the observations which have been made have been carefully considered.
I shall start with what I think is, on the whole, probably the most important part of the aspects of this problem, and which was referred to by both right hon. Gentlemen opposite and was also mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). That is the position about the Three-Power Declaration of 1950, for which the late Government were responsible, how far it meets our present needs, whether it ought to be amended, and whether there is anything else we can find which would better serve our purpose, and if so, what?
If I may say so, I think that both right hon. Gentlemen rather underestimated the extent of the commitment in the 1950 Declaration. It is extremely far-reaching. To give one example to the House, it goes far beyond our commitment under S.E.A.T.O. I will not quote all the words, but those to which I want to draw attention are in paragraph 3. The three Governments—and it is, of course, of
326
cardinal importance that it is the three Governments—all declare
"their deep interest in and their desire to promote the establishment and maintenance of peace and stability in the area and their unalterable opposition to the use of force or threat of force between any of the States in that area."
This is the strong sentence—
"The three Governments, should they find that any of these States was preparing to violate frontiers or armistice lines, would, consistently with their obligations as Members of the United Nations,"
There is nothing in that; that is in every treaty—
"immediately take action, both within and outside the United Nations, to prevent such violation."
That is preventive action, and I know very few international instruments, if any, which carry as strong a commitment as that one does. So that, while I am not by any means rejecting the suggestions made this afternoon, I would say that on all the legal advice tendered to me, this is a very far-reaching commitment indeed, and I am sure that the last thing the right hon. Gentleman would desire is that we should work out anything else which would result in weakening in any way the commitment we have there undertaken.
In that connection, I must answer something in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson): do the terms of the 1950 Declaration bind us to go to the help of Israel if she is attacked by an Arab State? The answer, is, yes, Sir, most certainly. They not only bind us, but they bind the United States and France also in exactly the same way, whether it be Israel or an Arab State. So I say again that I would be very hesitant myself to touch that Declaration unless I had a clear view where exactly we were going.
I could not help feeling as I listened to the debate that there was perhaps some misunderstanding in the minds of some hon. Members about our present engagements elsewhere. It is true there is an engagement with Jordan, also made by the late Government. I am not complaining, they made the treaty with Jordan and that is a far-reaching commitment. But, of course, there is no obligation under the agreement we have just made with Egypt in respect of a conflict with Israel, none. Israel is not

327
included in the definition of an outside Power. Under this Agreement we are only pledged to go to the help of Egypt—that is our obligation—if Egypt is invaded by a Power from outside the Middle East. It is in those terms—in other words, what I might call world terms—that the obligation applies. Therefore, I repeat my doubt as to whether it would be possible to find a better definition than is to be found in the 1950 Declaration.
As to our ability to carry that out, which has been mentioned by one or two hon. Members, I do not think that we are worse placed to do that now than we were before we reached agreement with Egypt. On the contrary, it would be very difficult to see what we could have done to carry out that obligation during the period of the worst relations with Egypt, when our Forces in the Canal Zone were virtually a beleagured garrison.
As to the way in which we shall be able to deploy those Forces, I do not want to give the House tonight, and I hope that hon. Members will not press me for it, a detailed list of what our ideas are about redeployment. There are other people who might be considerably interested. Although, no doubt, they will find out in due course, I do not see why we should tell them tonight. We are engaged on this. Plans are being worked out and redeployment is at present taking place both in respect of land forces and air forces.
I share the view of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland that there might be occasion for making certain smaller local bases. The Egyptian base will be very much smaller than it was. The Egyptian base may well be—I can go as far as this—in the form of a rear base whereas there may be other smaller bases in advance of it, having in mind that the duty which we shall have is to protect, shall we say, the Turkey-Iraq line. That is as far as I should like to go in showing how our minds are working, but I want to assure the House that there is a plan behind this effort.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South and the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and others asked what we were going to do about arms deliveries now that we have made the agreement. I want to make it quite clear that we are
328
going to make these deliveries only on the basis of the 1950 Declaration, that is to say that we shall continue to keep a balance as between Israel and the Arab States collectively. That is the balance that we shall try fairly to keep, and we shall do that in conjunction with our allies, which we must do, otherwise there is very little avail in our efforts. The last thing that I want to see is anything in the nature of an arms race in that part of the world. It would be quite disastrous in the present much inflamed atmosphere.
The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland spoke about refugees and this is the problem which I find most difficult of all to handle. I hope that the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) did not think that I did not care about it. I thought that he shook his head when it was suggested that I did.
Mr. Crossman indicated dissent.
Sir A. Eden: I assure the hon. Member that I do.
Mr. Crossman indicated assent.
Sir A. Eden: I have taken more personal trouble over this unhappy matter than I think over anything else since I became Foreign Secretary, and I confess that I have been singularly unsuccessful. I am beginning to doubt whether we can hope to make very much headway unless we can take some steps towards general political discussion. I do not think that it is true to say that the Arabs really believe that the great part of the refugees are going to be resettled in Palestine.
I do not think that they believe that in their hearts. On the other hand, there is this continuous deep sentiment among most Arab States—even in Jordan where, in King Abdullah's day, relations with Israel were the best—that the boundaries as they are now, are not those which the Arab States want to accept. I am not saying that they are right or wrong, but they are arguing that they are not the ones which were originally laid down by the United Nations. We all know what followed—there was war and fighting and this is the result, this is the psychological position we have to deal with.
Whenever one tries to make plans about the settlement of Arab refugees elsewhere there is no doubt at all that there is strong feeling among the refugees that what they want is to go back to the

329
territories which, in their view, were wrongly taken from them. We have to try to solve that problem. In the United Nations we have done more than tinker with it; very much money has been spent. We have ourselves spent more than £10 million—£10¾ million in the last three or four years—in handling it.
The tragedy is that we are not solving it but keeping it going, keeping people more or less alive and not getting nearer a solution. Any number of plans have been advocated, some ambitious and some less ambitious. I can only tell the House that we shall persist in doing everything which lies in our power to try to find a solution, but, after the experience we have had, I cannot pretend that I am very optimistic about an early development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory) referred to the friendliness of the Egyptian people. That is true. For instance, we are now having the full assistance and support of the police in the base area and incidents and thefts there have virtually ceased. Our prayer is that this may long continue and that friendly relations will develop. I want to give one example of how this improvement will be manifested. As the House probably knows—some hon. Members know—there have been anti-collaboration laws in Egypt which sought to prevent the Egyptians working with us. Now, although these are not mentioned in the Agreement—they could not very well be—the Egyptian Prime Minister did volunteer to my right hon. Friend that when the Agreement is ratified the Egyptian Government intend to repeal all those laws, so that that chapter will come to an end.
I know that what I am saying is not particularly popular, but I do hope that the House will give the Agreement a chance to work out. I do not believe we can bring assistance to anyone in the Middle East—Israeli or Arab—unless we can make some kind of success of this Agreement. If our relations with Egypt are thoroughly bad it does poison the atmosphere in all that area and make our influence more and more difficult to exercise.
Much has been said in this debate about the apprehensions of Israel and her anxieties. That was shown in the
330
eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), who felt warmly on the matter. I have heard of these apprehensions and, of course, read the speeches to which reference has been made. I deplore those speeches in the atmosphere in which we have to work. But, in assessing this anxiety, I do not think the House ought to underestimate—I know the hon. Member does not—Israel's very real military strength. According to our information it is certainly at least greater than that of any single Arab State and that is a very low estimate of its military power.
Although we give due weight to what occasioned these anxieties, perhaps we should not exaggerate them too much——
Mr. H. Morrison: There are four of them.
Sir A. Eden: The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South was able to make his assessment not long ago. I do not know what information was given him then as to the relative military power.
Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman was comparing Israel with the Arab States. I said that there are four Arab States.
Sir A. Eden: I said that it was a moderate underestimate of Israel's power. The right hon. Gentleman knows the calculations quite as well as I do.
But there is this fact, and this is where we have to bear in mind the position of Israel. For Israel, there is a very heavy economic strain in keeping this military effort going, and that is another reason why we have to seek to reduce the tension, so that Israel, equally with the Arab States, can devote more of her resources—as she wishes to do—to improving the economic well-being of the Middle East.
The right hon. Gentleman said, "Do not let us neglect the chance to negotiate." I promise that we shall not do that. I think we have already established certain contacts, but whether they will be of help in any way I simply cannot tell at this stage. I can only tell the House that we shall do everything in our power to try to reduce the tension by every means; whether it is locally from the point of view of the actual fighting in Israel and Jordan, or by other methods. We shall use whatever influence we may

331
have. We shall not weary in well doing in that respect.
I would repeat the warning of my right hon. Friend that if we are able to do anything about this there must be good relations. In that sense it is like the Trieste problem, you have to go underground to try to work things out and to try to get a measure of discussion. Therefore, while we will do everything that in our power lies, I cannot tell when I shall be able to report to the House.
Now a word about the vexed question of
the Suez Canal. In the view of Her Majesty's Government, Egypt is acting unlawfully in stopping even strategic cargoes bound for Israel from going through the Canal. We have expressed that view more than once at the United Nations, but I think that the House ought to know what is the Egyptian argument, even though we do not accept it. It is based on the Egyptian claim to be exercising a belligerent right which they derive from Article 10 of the Suez Canal Convention of 1888. I know that this was examined during the lifetime of the late Government. It allows her to take action in respect of the Canal in defence of Egypt. Article 10 declares that Egypt can waive certain Articles, including Article 4, for the defence of Egypt. I repeat that we do not accept this, because we do not accept that Egypt is a belligerent.
The case of the ship "Bat Galim" is not exclusively an Egyptian affair. It was actually taken to the Security Council at the request of Israel on 14th October, and after hearing the discussion they asked for a report by the Mixed Armistice Commission, and I think that that was right. The Commission has not yet reported, and I think it possible that the Israelis may ask for a further meeting of the Security Council if the report does not come in shortly.
I can give the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West one reassurance. I have been able to discover no evidence of persecution of the Jews in Egypt. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they form, and have for many years past formed a prosperous part of the community, and they play their part in Egyptian life. I am thankful to say that I have heard no evidence of anything otherwise than that recently. If the hon. Member has any
332
information no doubt he will convey it to me.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) and my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) have all discussed another picture, for this debate has covered a wide field. It is the problem of a Middle East economic organisation which is so
much wrapped up with this problem. The right hon. Gentleman asked—and again I sympathise with this as I have done before now—could we not have a Middle East economic organisation? The difficulty
which we come straight up against is that up to now some of the countries have no oil royalities. Those who have not show a perhaps not unintelligible desire to share with those who have. That is a desire which is not always shared by those who have to help those who have not, and that is not exclusively a Middle East monopoly. It happens in other parts of the world.
What is to be done about that? Actually, some of these countries are doing very valuable work already on the very lines that the right hon. Gentleman indicated. For instance, in Iraq 70 per cent. of the total oil revenues, which are very large now for Iraq, are being entirely devoted to development plans. That is very good. I want the House to encourage the work in the message that it sends out from this debate. The difficulty they are up against with all the development plans is that there is very little to show for the first three or four years. The result is that the people in the country who know that large oil revenues are coming in say, "Why do not we see something more immediate as a result?" That applies also to the schemes which we are trying to work out for the settlement of refugees. The House should encourage the countries who are prepared to do this, because it is the right way in which to handle a difficult problem.
I understand that the Persian Government intend to follow similar projects. They have similar projects in mind for when they get their revenues from the oil which is now to flow again, and we will help in any way we can. I ought to remind the House that we have a small organisation in the Middle East, a technical organisation, which has only about

333
half a dozen officers. It does invaluable work in these countries, giving technical advice on schemes and also reporting to us where we can give help.
I should like to make one reference to the Sudan. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) did not hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. I do not want to repeat what my right hon. Friend said but simply to add that we have not, of course, lost interest in the Sudan in any way at all. What my right hon. Friend said is, I believe, true. There is reason to believe that the Sudanese are becoming increasingly determined to decide their own future in the interests of the Sudan in their own way. I can ask for nothing more than that.
If my right hon. and gallant Friend wants to know why they are taking that point of view I can only advise him, and anybody else who is interested, to try to work it out for himself. I am not prepared to elaborate the reason why I think the process
which, personally, I welcome is now taking place. That does not mean that I have not got my own ideas about it.
Finally, I wish to say something about Persia. I start by expressing what will be the sentiment of the whole House—our regrets to His Majesty the Shah on the death of his brother. The Shah has tried perhaps more than any living Persian to develop his country and to bring his people to what we believe they should be in a modern State.
About the terms of the agreement, the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), I am very glad to be able to tell him—because I hate to see him worried about anything—was under a misapprehension. Probably he was not aware, and there is no reason why he should have been aware, that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's Agreement in 1933 provided for the transfer of the whole of the Abadan refinery, lock, stock and barrel, and the installations, to Persian ownership at the end of the concession. That was, if things had gone smoothly and well, 1993. Some of us may still be alive then, but not all of us.
What the consortium has done is to agree to recognise Persian ownership now but the consortium will have the use of
334
the installations until 1994—one year up. That is assuming that all the options are taken up so that, though the title is technically transferred, in fact the employment of the refinery is actually the same under the new arrangement as it was under the old.
I should like to say a few words about the £214 million which the other nations are paying for their share. Some say it was not very much, and not enough, but I do not know. I would only say that a short while ago I do not think that many would have offered 214 pence for our chance of returning to Abadan and to Persian oil. So, on the whole, I think the arrangement is a fair and reasonable one.
I want to say something about the American firms, very shortly but very firmly. I hope no one will suggest that out of this the Americans have in any way stolen some advantage over us, because that really is not true. We could not possibly have put this complicated negotiation through without American help, and particularly without American financial help throughout the year which has elapsed since Zahedi took over authority in Persia. They have kept the Persian Government going financially. Mossadeq, to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred so correctly, left, among other things, an empty till, and it was only by American help, which I reckon to be in the region of 100 million dollars, that the Persian Government have been able to keep going long enough for the complicated negotiations to be completed and for the oil to flow again. That ought to be clearly stated from time to time if there are unfair criticisms about the American concerns.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South welcomed the Persian Agreement. I think he did so, on the whole. If I understood him aright, he thought it was the kind of agreement that he would have liked to make had he not had to negotiate with Mossadeq. I sympathise with him there completely. As I watched him negotiating then with Mossadeq, I thought that he was perhaps having the same kind of experience that he sometimes has in negotiations rather nearer home.
As I listened to him—I listened very carefully to his account of the proceedings—I thought there was only one small

335
difference between us, and it was a very small one. At the end of the prolonged negotiations he was, unhappily, out of Abadan; at the end of our long negotiations we are, happily, back in Abadan again. However, I do not want to stress that difference unduly. What I do stoutly deny is the suggestion about being bellicose with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I have a speech with me now in which the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to refer to my moderation, so I should never accept that suggestion at all.
I should like to say, in conclusion, that there is nothing which will please the House as a whole more than to have got this unhappy dispute over. There never was anything more futile and foolish than this quarrel. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The fact was that Mossadeq was "completely unnegotiable." One comes across that sort of person occasionally. Fortunately, another system now operates, and we say to the Persian people tonight, from this House, that we hope that on the basis of the new agreement oil will flow freely and that they will get large revenues and that the prosperity of their people will be raised. Nothing will please us more than that. It is a true British interest that Persia should be happy and prosperous. May she be so once again.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL COAL BOARD (BORROWING POWERS)
  9.59 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): I beg to move,
  That the Draft Coal Industry Nationalisation (Borrowing Powers) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.
  The House will know that this Order
  was reported by the Statutory Instruments Committee without any comment. The Order stems from the Coal Industry Act, 1951, by which Act the borrowing powers of the National Coal Board for their expenditure on capital account and for working capital were raised to the total of £300 million. Of that total, £152·7 million has so far been borrowed by the Board, which is, therefore, well within the overall limit of its total borrowing powers. The Act of 1951 also limited the annual amount which the Board could borrow in any one year to a maximum sum of £40 million or such greater amount as might be specified in an Order made by the Minister.
  The time has now arrived when it is apparent that the needs of the Coal Board for further capital expenditure and working capital in this financial year are likely to exceed £40 million, and it is for that reason that my right hon. Friend has laid before the House the Order for which we now seek the approval of the House.
  If I may, I will outline to the House the budget, which I think hon. Members will wish to hear, as to the need for this money. Perhaps I should explain that, if any hon. Members seek to compare the exact figures which I quote with any which may have been quoted in the debate last Monday, they may find themselves in a difficulty. Last Monday's debate was upon the National Coal Board's Annual Report, and dealt with the figures in the National Coal Board year, which is from 1st January to 31st December. Tonight, we are dealing with the provisions of the Coal Industry Act, which deal with the nation's financial year, which is from 1st April to 31st March. Consequently there is necessarily a certain slight discrepancy when one is

  337
  dealing with figures covering a period of a year.
  For this purpose, for the year from 1st April, 1954, to 31st March, 1955, the National Coal Board estimates that it will require to borrow for capital investment and working capital the following sums: expenses on collieries, that is to say, actual capital development in the collieries themselves, coal preparation plants, pithead baths, coke ovens and matters of that sort, the sum of £85 million; for the financing of the Coal Industry Housing Association, the Board reckons that it will spend £15 million; for working capital it will require, owing to increased costs, expenses and expansion of business, an additional £5 million.
  We have felt that, as these sums are purely estimates, and as it is exceedingly difficult in the fluctuating circumstances of the time and of the business to be able to estimate with exactitude, it is desirable to add to that total a marginal figure of £5 million, so as to avoid the possibility at the end of the year of the Board being held up on some project which it is anxious and able to initiate, because it has not got the necessary borrowing powers. The House will appreciate that because it has the borrowing powers does not mean that the Board will get the money, but it cannot apply to my right hon. Friend for sanction to borrow unless it has the power to do it.
  Against that total of £110 million the Board estimates that it will find by means of depreciation and so forth, out of its internal resources, £35 million. This leaves a balance of £75 million, which is the sum in the Order which the Board will have power to borrow. I do not think that the House will wish me to elaborate further on the details of the work which the Board is doing and which requires this expansion of capital expenditure. They are contained in Schedule I (b) of the Annual Report of the National Coal Board.
  We had a very full summary on Monday last of the additional capital expenditure of the Board. My right hon. Friend was somewhat prophetic when, at the conclusion of a substantial portion of his speech which dealt with the subject of capital expenditure, he said:
  "The estimate for this year is £75 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 1623.]
  338
  That is the sum for which we ask the leave of the House for the Board to borrow.
  10.7 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I rise for only a few moments to say that we are in favour of this Order and shall vote for it. It was shown in the debate on Monday last that one of the overriding needs of our national economy in 1954 is the greatest possible investment in our coal mines. We cannot get too much coal in the next 20 years. We need to get the maximum which it is technically and geologically possible to carry out, by way of investment in the sinking of new pits and the reconstruction of existing pits.
  The Minister of Fuel and Power and other hon. Members with knowledge of the industry gave a review on Monday last of the great difficulties which the National Coal Board has had, and still have, to face in carrying out this new investment policy. There are engineering difficulties; there is the shortage of engineers, which has not yet been overcome. The building up of the planning teams is not at all a simple matter, even if we had the engineers.
  There is one other matter which I had in my notes to mention last week, but which I spared the House, because I did not wish to speak for too long. It is not generally realised, even in the industry, that the Board is doing major reconstruction work in the mines, such as driving new level roads measuring 14 feet by 10 feet or 12 feet, and that owing to that and the fact that many of the seams have much more dirt than they used to have, while there are many fewer seams than 15 years ago which are wholly free of dirt, the discard of dirt and stone with which the Board has to deal, owing to no fault of its own but owing to the fundamental geological facts of the situation, is 17 million tons greater than it was in 1938. That shows that there is a tremendous extra burden on the industry and that we need every modern device and mechanical help that we can get to obtain more coal.
  The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the housing schemes on which large sums of money are being spent. I believe that we could with advantage spend still more. We wish to encourage the Govern-

  339
  ment in all these developments, and we are very glad to vote for this Order.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Draft Coal Industry Nationalisation (Borrowing Powers) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.

MISSING SOLDIERS, KOREA
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Studholme.]
10.11 p.m.
Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: When I heard that I had secured this Adjournment debate, I was very delighted, because I knew that I would have the opportunity of making a very bitter attack upon the War Office, and I meant to pursue that course. I meant to use all the most bitter adjectives that this House would allow me to use. I meant to be particularly vindictive, and I think that I was justified in my attitude at that time. But, alas, my wings have been clipped.
The fact of the matter is that today the Secretary of State for War has made an announcement in this House which has certainly taken the wind out of my sails. That announcement will go a great way towards satisfying the main demands of Mrs. Arno and of all those people who, like Mrs. Arno, are victims of the Korean war. I think that I had better say a word or two about Mrs. Arno and what she really represents in this discussion.
Mrs. Arno was the wife of Fusilier Arno of the Northumberland Fusiliers. Her husband was reported missing in the battle of Happy Valley on 4th January, 1951, almost four years ago, since when Mrs. Arno has been in the same position as the relatives of the 101 people who were missing in the Korean war and the presumption of whose death had until today not been accepted by the War Office.
Today is the first time that Private Harry Arno has been presumed dead since 4th January, 1951. Of the 101 people who were missing in the Korean fighting, 24 were married men. Ever since the prisoners were returned, 24 wives have been left in doubt. They have not known whether they were wives
340
or widows. The problem is all the more complicated because of their domestic responsibilities.
During the last four years, Mrs. Arno has been paying insurance premiums on the life of a dead man. Harry Arno should have drawn the money on an endowment policy at the beginning of this year, but up to now his wife, as his next of kin, has been unable to draw that money because the War Office would not accept the presumption of the death of Harry Arno. Mrs. Arno, in common with many of the other widows of these missing men—I know this from letters which I have received—is in a position to remarry, but has been unable to do so because, until today, the War Office has said that she is still a wife. I think that is a very difficult situation for Mrs. Arno.
One cannot over-estimate the domestic disturbance which she has suffered. I do not want to go into all the circumstances, but the last letter I received less than a month ago from the War Office still appeared to indicate that the War Office was not going to accept presumption of the death of these men in Korea. I am very glad that the War Office has changed its mind and that the announcement has been made today.
I had intended coming to this House today breathing fire and slaughter. I cannot do that now. The change in the attitude of the War Office has, I believe, been due to the fact that there has been a new Under-Secretary at the War Office who was as bitter in his invective against the War Office, because he had one of these cases in his constituency, as I was before he became Under-Secretary.
I know the circumstances of the reported deaths of many of these men. In passing, let me say—even if I put this in its most ridiculous form—that I believe the time has come in war, with modern high explosives and atomic shells, when, in order to prove the death of a person who has been blown to pieces in action, the War Office will require the evidence of at least two solicitors and one doctor, or else widows will be wives in perpetuity so far as the War Office is concerned.
I want to thank the Under-Secretary for what he has done. I know that he has applied himself most diligently and conscientiously to his task, and I believe that the results which have been broadcast to

341
the country today are the result of the work that he has done and will be satisfactory to the relatives and the wives of the missing men in Korea.
There is, however, an outstanding problem for Mrs. Arno. In 1951 Mrs. Arno came to me because the War Office informed her that after 17 weeks the Army pay and allotment that she had received from her husband would be discontinued in favour of what the War Office call a continuing allowance. The continuing allowance is exactly the same as a war widow's pension. Mrs. Arno had been receiving £4 0s. 6d. a week Army pay and allowances. The continuing allowance is £1 for any widow under 40 years of age without children.
I made representations 3½ years ago. I will not say as a result of those representations, but by a remarkable coincidence, the War Office at that time decided to continue the Army pay and allowances. They did that until March of this year. In March of this year the Army pay and allowances were discontinued, and the continuing allowance of £1 commenced—a difference to Mrs. Arno of £3 Os. 6d. a week. According to the circumstances of these 24 widows, there have been varying reductions in each case.
This is the point that I want to raise. How can the Government logically or morally refuse to grant retrospective pay from March until the time that death is presumed, by reason of the losses that these people have suffered through the withdrawal of Army allowances? I understand that it is the responsibility of the War Office and not a matter for the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance.
It would, therefore, seem that whilst during the last six months widowhood has been denied these women through lack of presumption of death, widowhood has
been accepted as a fact by the War Office in terms of payment to them. That ought to be corrected. I understand that the Treasury may be nigger in the woodpile. If so, I shall never cease to fight to get retrospective pay for these widows up to the date—that is today—that the War Office has presumed the death of their husbands.
In pressing for that, I feel that it is the least we can do for these widows who have suffered so much domestic unhappiness by the loss of their husbands and as
342
a result of War Office treatment in regard to payment. I have gone into this matter very closely. The War Office say, in effect, that a missing man is either a prisoner, or he has been killed, or he has deserted. The War Office knew in March of this year, when it discontinued the Army pay and started the continuing allowance, that these missing men could not come back. It had a pretty good idea that most of them had been killed. The only basis on which the continuing allowance was begun, therefore, was desertion.
I know that the Under-Secretary will not agree with me on this, and I am sorry that, in an Adjournment debate, we have only a limited time. If we could have had a discussion to and fro I think that I could have proved to him from his own brief that the basis of the continuing allowance in such circumstances is desertion. That, I say, is the crowning insult to the men who fought for freedom in Korea. To cut their pay before one is prepared to presume death does not redound to the credit of the War Office. I am not blaming the Under-Secretary. I thank him for all that he has done. I hope that he is prepared to go forward to press this matter with the Treasury until we get satisfaction.
He may say that these widows can seek redress in court, but it is a scandalous thing to say that relatives of British soldiers should have to seek recourse to a court of law to get common justice from the War Office. If the Under-Secretary says that, then I hope that one of these widows, wealthy enough and with enough public spirit, will take court action and set a precedent of success. On this question of the payments to the widows of the heroes of Korea, I hope that the Under-Secretary will give an assurance that he will take this case to the Treasury, so that, apart from recognition in terms of payment, common justice will be done to these widows of our Korean dead.
10.24 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Mulley: I intervene, though only very briefly, because I have been in correspondence with the War Office since January, making representations regarding a similar case—that of Mrs. Garner, also of Sheffield. I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend not only for raising this matter tonight, but for the vigorous way in which throughout he has pursued his

343
representations. Although we had a very satisfactory answer on the general subject this afternoon, I venture to say that, but for the representations made by my hon. Friend and others, we would not have had that answer.
I join with my hon. Friend in thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for what he had done since he took office, but I cannot allow the occasion to pass without saying that the War Office has been dismally slow in coming to what seemed to most of us to be an obvious conclusion. The consequence of that delay and dither has been a great deal of anxiety and concern to these ladies. Mrs. Garner has some small children and has been in the difficulty of not knowing what to say when they asked, naturally enough, "When is my daddy coming home, too?" I feel that the War Office initially was not prepared to take this very human problem seriously enough.
We are not at all satisfied upon the question of pay. Mrs. Garner's pay was reduced in March last and, as my hon. Friend has said, the War Office was trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, it was saying that these ladies were not widows but wives, and, on the other hand, in a matter where it could have helped by continuing to pay them as wives, it said, "No; on our calculations you must be widows."
If that state of affairs is not brought to an end immediately, we shall constantly raise this matter in the House. In addition, we shall insist upon retrospective payment up to today's date, when the War Office has at last agreed to presume that these gallant soldiers have been killed.
10.26 p.m.
Mr. David Jones: Since we resumed after the Summer Recess the War Office has told me that there were about 24 of these widows. We only knew that they were widows at three o'clock this afternoon. Up to that moment to the women, to us and, I assume, to the War Office, they were still regarded as wives. They have been treated as widows only for the purpose of payment, although from the circumstances in which these men were missing it seemed to be obvious that they were either prisoners or were dead.
344
When Korean prisoners of war were returned from enemy hands it was obvious that these men were no longer prisoners. It may be that the Under-Secretary will tell us that the Government could not get any information from the Chinese. If that be the case, I suggest that they had no right at all to reduce the payments they were making to these women.
The case I have in mind concerns a Mrs. Foster, whose husband was in the Royal Ulster Rifles. She had a reduction of more than £3 in her pay. She has young children, of an adolescent age, whom she has had to rear and try to educate. Her husband was posted as missing. She did not know where, and no assistance came from the War Office, but it reduced her pay by more than £3 a week. It seems only common justice that, now that the War Office has reached the conclusion which it announced today, these women ought to be given the payments they were entitled to right up to the present moment.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us some satisfaction about these payments, in the same way as his right hon. Friend satisfied us about the agreement of the War Office to regard these men as dead.
10.28 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): As my right hon. Friend announced in the House this afternoon, the decision has now been taken to presume the death of about 100 officers and men hitherto posted as missing in Korea. These included Fusilier Arno and the other two soldiers mentioned by hon. Members opposite.
Before I go any further I should like to associate myself with my right hon. Friend's expression of sympathy for the next-of-kin. The House will realise what painful suspense and uncertainty they have had to endure, and I can assure hon. Members that the chief concern of the War Office has been to bring that uncertainty to an end as soon as circumstances permitted. I repeat "as soon as circumstances permitted."
While thanking the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) for the kind things which he said about me, I would hasten to assure him that they

345
were unjustified, because this decision would have been reached even if I had not arrived at the War Office when I did. Equally, as I hope to show in a few moments, it could not have been reached sooner.
First of all, to clear up any misapprehension that may still exist on this subject, it might be useful if I were to say a few words about the procedure adopted by the Army in cases of this kind. The procedure is that the military authorities on the spot are responsible for posting a soldier as killed, wounded, prisoner of war or missing.
Mr. William Ross: Or a deserter.
Mr. Maclean: Or as a deserter in certain circumstances. That posting is done at the time that the soldier becomes a casualty. If subsequent information is received which justifies the transfer of the missing soldier to some other category, that is killed or prisoner of war, the records are amended and the next of kin informed accordingly. If, on the other hand, further information is not forthcoming the possibility of presuming death has to be considered.
In the course of his remarks the hon. Member for Brightside made reference to and criticised the practice of stopping the payment of allowances to the next-of-kin before death is presumed. I think that it would be a good thing if, in order to make this decision more readily comprehensible, I were to explain, first, the normal procedure, that is, the procedure that was adopted up to the Korean war, and, secondly, the special procedure which has been adopted during and since that war.
During the Second World War the treatment of a man posted as missing was as follows: for a period of four weeks full pay and allowances remained in issue. The part of these emoluments which had been paid to his dependants, for example, marriage allowance and pay allotment, continued to be paid, the remainder of his pay being credited to his pay account. After four weeks, the emoluments paid to his dependants continued but no further pay was credited to his account. This went on for a period of 13 weeks, making 17 weeks in all, since the soldier in question had been posted as missing.
346
If, at the end of 17 weeks, nothing further had been heard about him, the payment of marriage allowance and pay allotment to his dependants ceased and was replaced by the so-called continuing allowance, at the same rate as the pension which would have been payable to his dependants in the event of death.
The logic of this procedure, which presupposes that the normal machinery for reporting prisoners of war was functioning properly—that is, we were told reasonably soon through the Red Cross or through a neutral country who had been taken prisoner and who had been killed in other cases—was that if no news of a man had been received through these channels after 17 weeks, the likelihood was that he was dead. I say the likelihood, not the certainty. There would, therefore, be no further justification for continuing payments from public funds on the same basis as if he were alive. Instead, this payment was dropped to pension rates and when evidence was finally produced of his death, or his death was presumed, these payments were continued in the form of this actual pension payable to his dependants.
After evidence was produced of his death, or his death was presumed, as it has now been presumed in the case of these missing in Korea, the Ministry of Pensions took over and a pension was paid to his dependants in the ordinary way, if they qualified for it. In the rare cases in which a man in this category was later shown to be alive, at once retrospective payments were made of full pay and allowances——
Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Unless he deserted.
Mr. Maclean: If he qualified. Unless he was a deserter, that is perfectly true.
That was the procedure which obtained during the whole of the 1939 war, but, early in the Korean War it became apparent that one of the main premises on which it was based would not, in fact, be fulfilled. In view of the extraordinary conditions prevailing and of the attitude adopted in this matter by the enemy, the period in which one could hope to obtain firm news of any missing man was frequently very much in excess of 17 weeks. Because we did not hear of a man after 17 weeks that did not in this case prove anything, whereas, in the 1939 war, if a man had not been heard of either as a

347
prisoner of war, or if his body had not been found, the likelihood was that he was, in fact, dead.
For this reason, in the Korean War it was not reasonable to assume the probability of death after this period. Therefore, in these circumstances it was agreed that full payments of marriage allowance and pay allotments to the next-of-kin, the dependants, should continue until things became clearer. Once an armistice had been concluded and as the repatriation of prisoners progressed, the situation gradually changed. A number of cases were cleared up either by the discovery of that the man in question had actually been a prisoner of war all the time but that his capture had not been notified, or alternatively, that he was dead.
But, even after the repatriation of prisoners of war had been officially completed, there still remained a number of
348
cases of officers and men who had not been repatriated as prisoners but of whose death there was still no firm news and, meanwhile, to whose dependants marriage allowance and pay allotments were still being paid. As there was by now very little hope that any of these men could still be alive, it was felt that the continued payment in full of these emoluments would no longer be justified and the decision was accordingly taken to discontinue them, replacing them in cases where pension would have been payable in the event of death by a continuing allowance——
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Nineteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Local Authority Contracts (Certificates of Non-collusion)
  Local Authority Contracts (Certificates of Non-collusion)
  Government Buildings, Lawnswood (Use)
  Government Buildings, Lawnswood (Use)
  London Builders' Conference (Restrictive Practices)
  London Builders' Conference (Restrictive Practices)
  BRITISH FORCES, GERMANY (SPECIAL VOUCHERS)
  BRITISH FORCES, GERMANY (SPECIAL VOUCHERS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Exports to China (Motor Tyres)
  Exports to China (Motor Tyres)
  Bulb Imports
  Bulb Imports
  CIVIL SERVICE POSTS (SECURITY PROCEDURE)
  CIVIL SERVICE POSTS (SECURITY PROCEDURE)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Gold and Dollar Loans (Repayments)
  Gold and Dollar Loans (Repayments)
  Capital Issues Committee (Applications)
  Capital Issues Committee (Applications)
  Persian Oil Agreement (Payments Arrangements)
  Persian Oil Agreement (Payments Arrangements)
  RIVER THAMES (POLLUTION)
  RIVER THAMES (POLLUTION)
  WELSH OFFICE, CARDIFF (APPOINTMENT)
  WELSH OFFICE, CARDIFF (APPOINTMENT)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Land, Gravesend (Planning Permission)
  Land, Gravesend (Planning Permission)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (NON-DEPARTMENTAL POSTS)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (NON-DEPARTMENTAL POSTS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (JAMAICAN IMMIGRANTS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (JAMAICAN IMMIGRANTS)
SCOTLAND
  Children's Comics
  Children's Comics
  Slaughterhouses, Berwickshire (Application)
  Slaughterhouses, Berwickshire (Application)
  Landholding, Sutherland (Tenant)
  Landholding, Sutherland (Tenant)
  Poliomyelitis
  Poliomyelitis
  Potato Harvesting (Schoolchildren)
  Potato Harvesting (Schoolchildren)
  SHIPPING (EXPORTS TO RUSSIA)
  SHIPPING (EXPORTS TO RUSSIA)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  London Sessions House (Rebuilding)
  London Sessions House (Rebuilding)
  United States Prosecution (Police Inquiries)
  United States Prosecution (Police Inquiries)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Anglo-American Hospitality (Women Information Officers)
  Anglo-American Hospitality (Women Information Officers)
  Court Martial, Canal Zone (Report)
  Court Martial, Canal Zone (Report)
  EXPORTS TO CHINA
  EXPORTS TO CHINA
  U.N. CHILDREN'S FUND (CONTRIBUTIONS)
  U.N. CHILDREN'S FUND (CONTRIBUTIONS)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Reciprocal Benefits
  Reciprocal Benefits
  MALTA (CONSTITUTION)
  MALTA (CONSTITUTION)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
  THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. It is as follows:
  "I have received your Addresses praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Council of Europe) (Amendment) Order, 1954; the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Customs Co-operation Council Order) 1954; the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the European Payments Union) Order, 1954; the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Civil Aviation Organisation) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1954; the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Sugar Council) Order, 1954; the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Telecommunication Union) Order, 1954; the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Order, 1954; the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Universal Postal Union) Order, 1954, and the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the World Meteorological Organisation) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before your House.
  "I will comply with your request."

MODERNISATION OF LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING
2.37 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would be prepared to introduce an early amendment to the existing housing legislation, so as to allow local authority housing to benefit from the existing housing grants for the improvement of their earlier properties, especially in rural areas, which in many cases are in urgent need of modernisation, in view of the fact that water and electricity have now arrived in most of them.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, it would not be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to amend existing legislation to achieve the purpose which my noble friend has in mind. It has not, however, been the practice to give improvement grants under the Housing Act, 1949, for work on houses owned by local authorities which were built with the aid of subsidies under the Housing Acts. My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has received representations on this question from the Rural District Councils Association and is considering them now.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for his reply? I am glad to hear that this matter is receiving careful consideration. It is a point of considerable importance, especially as it relates to the earlier houses in the rural areas.

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS IN PARLIAMENT SQUARE
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it can be arranged for pedestrian crossings to be sited in Parliament Square to enable pedestrians to cross the Square via the island, instead of, as at present, allowing pedestrians to get on to the island by a police-controlled crossing at the north-west corner and then to become marooned.]
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, it is very doubtful whether such crossings would be practicable, having regard to traffic

947
conditions at this busy centre and the necessary weaving movements of the various traffic streams, but the noble Lord's suggestion is being examined in consultation with the Westminster City Council and the Police.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Lord for his sympathetic reply, may I ask him whether consideration will be given to the fact that pedestrian crossings are intended for the benefit and safety of pedestrians, and not for the convenience of vehicular traffic? It is the density of the traffic round Parliament Square that makes pedestrian crossings essential.
LORD HAWKE: As the noble Lord appreciates, this is a question of balance. This is the fourth busiest square in London for vehicular traffic. It is one in respect of which any risk of tying up traffic for any period must be carefully considered.
LORD HINDLIP: Arising out of his Answer, would not my noble friend Lord Hawke agree that if a further pedestrian crossing was made in Parliament Square where the traffic now flows freely as a rule—freer than in other London squares—it would impede that free flow of traffic in and around the Houses of Parliament?
LORD HAWKE: That is certainly one of the gravest considerations which will have to be considered when my right honourable friend is discussing this matter with the council and the police concerned.

TRANSPORT CHARGES &c. (MIS CELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
2.42 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
"3. In considering the needs of the area as required under section seventy-two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, relating to the running of unremunerative services and the convenience of the public, a licensing authority shall have power to attach to any licence to run a particular service the condition that the applicant shall also undertake to run some other additional service or services and the grant
948
of a licence to run the particular service for which application has been made shall thereafter be conditional on the applicant also running such additional service or services; and in fixing the fares appropriate to such additional service or services the licensing authority shall have regard to the entire remuneration likely to be received by the undertaker for the whole of the area."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment again appears upon the Marshalled List as, when your Lordships discussed this matter at the Committee stage, the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill promised to give it consideration. I do not intend to repeat all the arguments which I then put before your Lordships, but I feel that on that occasion I had powerful support from the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. I think I should be right in saying that he was the architect, or one of the architects, of the 1930 Road Traffic Act, because at that time he was Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. He told your Lordships, quite frankly, that it was the intention not only of the Act, but of Parliament when it passed the 1930 Act, that the licensing authorities should be responsible for seeing that there were provided adequate road passenger transport facilities. Among other things they had to do was to see that unremunerative routes were run.
Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to refresh your memories over the relevant provision of the 1930 Act. Section 72 (3) says that the traffic commissioners (they were called "traffic commissioners" in those days, until, by the 1947 Act, the title was changed to "licensing authorities") had to have regard to a number of matters in granting a road service licence, including
"(d) the needs of the area as a whole in relation to traffic (including the provision of adequate, suitable and efficient services, the elimination of unnecessary services and the provision of unremunerative services) …"
Then, at the end of subsection (4), the Act provides that the traffic commissioners have to lay down conditions.
"… generally for securing the safety and convenience of the public;"
The argument advanced by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on Committee stage was that this was not a very serious matter because public service companies run a large number of unremunerative services. To that I am prepared to assent. I will be frank with your Lordships: I do not think this is a major problem

949
to-day, but the costs of transport are rising and the need for economy in operation costs is ever present in the minds of public service operators. I admit that some companies which run services in vast rural areas have 75 per cent. of their routes unremunerative. But there is a public service to be given, and unless we wish to see a drift away from the countryside we must give rural dwellers the opportunity of enjoying the amenities of the town. I am afraid that in the absence of some such provision as I suggest the unremunerative services will diminish and diminish.
Let us be quite frank about this. It was the essence of the 1930 Act, in setting up monopolies and near monopolies of road passenger transport, to safeguard operators against competition, so that they could run unremunerative routes and reimburse themselves on the remunerative routes, so that "pirates"—if I may use the term—would not break in and "cream" the remunerative routes and leave the established companies to carry the liabilities while they plundered the assets. That was the idea behind the 1930 Act. Is Parliament's intention row different from that in 1930? It has never had a chance of testing this matter. I am going to suggest to the noble Earl that it would be a good idea to test the opinion of Parliament as to whether or not it did intend the licensing authorities to have jurisdiction over these services to the extent of requiring the running of unremunerative services, and whether Parliament is of the same opinion to-day. It has not had a chance of expressing an opinion for twenty-five years, and perhaps Parliament has altered its opinion. At present, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said, and as I know from my own experience in the Ministry of Transport, there is a sharp division of opinion among licensing authorities as to whether they have this power or not; some think they have, and some think they have not. Could we not have it settled once and for all? At the present time it is in an Act of Parliament. Nobody can test that Act of Parliament except the Ministry of Transport, and the Ministry of Transport cannot be expected to bring a test against their own child—because that is what it amounts to. I should like to hear the noble Earl's reply in the light of his consideration of the arguments put by
950
the noble Lords, Lord Hurcomb and Lord Greenhill, and by myself on Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I have examined the noble Lord's Amendment with some sympathy, but I think it is true to say that if this Amendment were accepted, the public would suffer, because operators would seek to discontinue any unremunerative service which they were running at the time when receipts were particularly low, and perhaps use the licensing authority as a shield to do so. May I give a short example? If the cost of a service was, say, 22d. and the company were taking only 10d., I would say that even the licensing authorities, who of course must have some yardstick, would have to say that such a service would have to cease. If we examine the Thesiger Report, we find that paragraph 113 uses these words:
"It is useless … to suggest that local authorities should have the right to propose or that the licensing authority should have the power to order a service to be compulsorily provided."
It goes on to say:
"All such proposals ignore the fact that if a service cannot pay for itself, its provision depends on a subsidy from elsewhere."
The fact is that already a number of companies have reached a stage where further increases in fares would produce no additional revenue, so that we could not get a subsidy from that direction. I would say that the moral sanction of providing unremunerative services is accepted by the operators as a whole, and very few cases have come to light where there have been complaints. For the reasons I have mentioned, I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is always interesting when speaking on transport, and the points he raises are important. I can go quite a long way in agreeing with many of the things he said. We agree, first of all, that this particular Amendment is outside the Long Title of the Bill, and therefore I am not going to argue that point. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that one of the major purposes of the 1930 Act was the provision of unremunerative services. That is

951
a most important aspect of road transport, and necessarily so, and I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that it has been extensively carried out. I will not repeat the figures now. He will also agree that the whole matter has been carefully examined by the Thesiger Committee. Where, however, we differ is on the question of whether what he suggests would, in fact, achieve more than the present system. I may add that the Thesiger Report, as my noble friend Lord Teynham said, did not suggest that it would.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, brought up an interesting question of law. I am in some difficulty about this aspect, because it is not my position to expound the law here—indeed, nobody can expound the law except the courts. I must confess that I was astonished to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, giving advice which, I am bound to say, is different from the advice I would give. However, I do not think it matters, and for this reason. Reading the section, there is certainly some ground for taking the assumption that the licensing authority have the right to impose a condition. In view of that, I would say that, if they had really wanted to do it, some licensing authority would have done it in the last twenty-five years. The reason why they have not done so, why they have not had the matter tested in the courts, is simply that they have not wanted to do it. Otherwise, quite frankly, I can see no reason why it has not been tested in the courts. The licensing authorities have selected, as I think rightly, the alternative course of trying to get agreement as to what they thought was wise, and to secure that measure of good will that comes with agreement. What the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, wants—and this is the crux of the matter—is to make an operating company do something that they do not want to do. He wants to give the licensing authority the power of making a positive condition. I can only say that, in my view, that is a doubtful policy, for certain definite reasons which I should like to give to your Lordships.
The first is that the licensing authority would have to have an excellent
952
information service to justify the imposition of a positive condition of that character. At the present moment the only information they have is what is brought to their own court. In the second place, the licensing authority would become responsible for the provision of services, and if anybody wanted to make a complaint in future he would make it to the licensing authority and not to the operating company. That, to my mind, would be entirely wrong. The licensing authority are not a body which should be held responsible for services. Thirdly—and this I feel is a fair point to make—if you order an operating company to provide a service which they do not want to provide, they could easily operate it in a highly uneconomical manner, and thereby prove that it was a bad service and that the licensing authority had been in error in forcing them to operate it. Those are fairly solid reasons, I feel, why we should not accept this Amendment.
As the noble Lord said, there is the question of adjustment of urban and rural area fares. That is an important point, and it is one which I feel is much better considered ad hoc in each area, for the reason given by my noble friend Lord Teynham: that it can be taken only so far, because after that you reach a point of consumer resistance in the urban area and the adjustment would defeat its own ends. The adjustment of town and country relationship is not easy, and I feel that it is better dealt with in the individual cases. After all, we have had a good testimony in the Thesiger Report to the working of this system. I think it is fair to say that in the whole field of transport today, probably the companies working under the 1930 Act work most smoothly. Generally their fares are the cheapest; they pay their way, and they have been a tremendous boon to the more distant parts of the country. The whole system has, as I say, been thoroughly examined and, on the whole, been given a certificate of good character. I am afraid that we should be running the risk of upsetting a system which is working well by bringing a new element into it.
I would add (the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, did not emphasise this point, but I am sure he has it in mind) that it is important that the public should tell the licensing authority what

953
they want. The noble Lord has done a service to his own part of the country by doing so, and other people have done the same. There are ample channels through which that can be done at present, and I think they are being used. I can assure the noble Lord that we have gone into this matter thoroughly, and I should be glad if he could now withdraw the Amendment, because I do not think it would be an improvement on what we have at the present time.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, when the noble Earl ends up a speech like that it almost brings tears to my eyes, and I cannot resist his eloquence. But, while I cannot resist his eloquence, I do not accept his arguments as being what he called "solid." I think they are flimsy; they are good debating arguments, and I myself have used them many times when I have had to defend this kind of thing from the other side of your Lordships' House. The noble Earl may be right in saying that this will be an ever-recurring problem. I think that the part of the Thesiger Report which dealt with this problem was the woolliest part of a very good Report. It said precisely what the noble Earl said: that it is useless to ask any local authority or a licensing authority to compel somebody to run bus services—that is the gist of what the Thesiger Committee said. But they never said why.
I do not for a moment accept the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham—I think it was even weaker than that of the noble Earl. He said that if this were done these bus companies would cease to run these services. They would not. The fares would be equalised. The danger now lies in the fact mentioned by the noble Earl; that in many cases the height of fares has reached its maximum. If that is true—and I do not doubt the noble Earl's words—then something drastic has got to be done in future, because in that event Her Majesty's Government will fail in their duty of seeing that rural areas are provided with one of the necessities of life—an adequate transport service. I am not going to weary your Lordships with this matter any longer. I have stated the case. I am quite confident that this House will return to this problem many times in the next few months, because transport threatens from to-morrow onwards to be
954
one of the most pertinent points with which your Lordships' House will have to deal, and in some way or another, this problem is bound to come up. I have stated the case. I am quite happy to fall in with the charm of the noble Earl's last request, and I now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9:
Control of number of passengers on public service vehicles, tramcars and trolley vehicles
9.—(1) The Minister may make regulations with respect to public service vehicles, tramcars and trolley vehicles, providing for—
3.0 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (c) to insert:
"(d) the determination of a simple form of licence governing the occasions when public service vehicles, tramcars and trolley vehicles are used as contract carriages but separate fares are charged:"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not exercise the same amount of charm in his reply to this Amendment, but will be a little more forthcoming and give me what I want. Again I will not go over all the arguments. This Amendment seeks to cure one of the worst examples of asinine stupidity of the law which has been prevalent since 1930. It so happens that at the present time private hire work by contract carriage motor coach is absolutely prohibited, if it is to keep with the law, because no party can hire a coach, as I said in my explanation, rather lengthily, I am afraid, on the Committee stage. The Women's Institute or the village club cannot take the children in a party to a pantomime in the nearest town and charge separate fares without entering into a criminal conspiracy, because they are running a contract carriage as either an express carriage or a stage carriage without the road service licence which is required.
This matter has gone through the courts. On my last Ambendment the noble Earl pleaded the Thesiger Report, and said that this weighty Report had decided against me, quite conclusively, in regard to the powers of licensing authorities. Now it does precisely the opposite when it comes to contract licences. The Thesiger Report on this point is very

955
definite, and says that this position is causing great inconvenience to the public. These are its words in paragraph 243:
"The position at the moment is really quite intolerable. Practically none of the work which has been considered to be legitimate private hire work is now legal. Grave public inconvenience is only avoided by an omission to enforce the law, and it may be that every two or more persons who agree together to run a vehicle charging separate fares subject to the conditions of the 1934 Act, but on what has been held not to be a special occasion, might be liable to be indicted for a criminal conspiracy."
The courts have upheld that finding as recently as 1952, and I say that it causes great hardship and inconvenience to the rural population who are outside the scope of stage services. It is also causing great inconvenience to the entertainment world. I have it on good authority that quite a number, if not all, the provincial theatres, especially during the pantomime season, rely a good deal on block bookings; and block bookings are made up of coach parties. I was told only the other day that even Covent Garden have now to rely largely on block bookings from provincial musical societies, glee clubs and organisations such as that for a substantial amount of their patronage.
This is undoubtedly something which should have been altered. In the Committee stage, the noble Earl agreed with everything I said—or practically everything. He promised that the Government had this in mind and that there would be legislation some time in the future. He used that cliché we have all used from time to time, "when Parliamentary time permits." When anybody says that, it is always wrapped in mystery as far as I am concerned. I want the noble Earl to do something to tide us over this winter—because nobody dares run a contract carriage to-day—so that if, in the next Session, we find a Bill is brought forward, this anomaly can be tidied up in that Bill.
I suggested to the noble Earl on the Committee stage that he should do this either by accepting my Amendment or by getting his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport to issue a regulation which I maintain he can do under Section 94 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. The Road Traffic Act has a section in it allowing the Minister to make regulations for the carrying out in general of anything in the section. I should think that
956
the Minister could well make a regulation to get over this matter in time for this winter's entertainments. May I read the first two or three lines of Section 94? It is in Part IV of the Act, and states:
"The Minister may make regulations for any purpose for which regulations may be made under this Part of this Act and for prescribing anything which may be prescribed under this Part of this Act, and generally for the purpose of carrying this Part of this Act into effect. …"
Some little time ago, your Lordships' will remember there was another anomaly in the Road Traffic Act as to whether for the purpose of the speed limit regulations an estate wagon or estate car was a commercial vehicle or a private car. I know that many of your Lordships were fined for carrying out a journey in an estate wagon as a private car at over 30 miles per hour when the chief constable of the area maintained that it was a commercial vehicle. Others of your Lordships were more lucky and operated in a neighbourhood where the chief constable took a different view—because the law was just as anomalous upon that matter is it is upon this. It took four years to get Parliament to alter it, but alter it they did, in about 1950. They did it under a precisely similar provision in another part of this Act. In that Part there is the precise wording that a Minister may issue a regulation. The Minister issued a regulation in 1950—I have it in my hand—and the law was altered. Now everyone knows exactly where he stands but not before many people had paid a considerable sum of money in fines for breaching a law about which the authorities in some parts of the country took one view and in other parts of the country another view.
When the noble Earl was giving me his answer on the Committee stage, he said this—I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT (Vol. 189 (No. 106), col. 554):
"Of course, everything that the noble Lord has said I will look at most carefully, but I am bound to say that there is a great deal of contract work going on."
When I replied that it was illegal, the noble Earl said:
"It may or may not be. It is not for me or the noble Lord to say whether it is or is not."
I felt sure the noble Earl would not say what he did without some authority; and I have been making inquiries and I find that a very nice evasion of the law has

957
been going on. Some licensing authorities, I understand—and the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—are getting over this silly and ridiculous piece of nonsense by saying to people who want to run contract carriage parties, "If you apply to us we will give you a tours and excursions licence"—for something for which normally they should have a road service licence. In doing that, they are admittedly getting over this anomaly, because the operator can then run anywhere at any time and take anybody. But he is contravening the spirit of the law, because the spirit of the law said, "If you charge separate fares you must have a road service licence to enable you to do so." The reason why a licence was required was to prevent, if I can put it this way, piracy by the owner of a contract carriage, which did not require a licence, against the established operator who had the obligation to charge stable fares and run regular services.
We are in this position. I understand that two or three licensing authorities throughout the country are adopting this practice; others will not. If you happen to live in one part of this country the law is being interpreted by the licensing authority in one way, but if you happen to live in another part of the country where the licensing authority take a far stricter view, the members of the public are refused the amenity that the others have. Surely that is a very silly way of getting over an anomaly in the law, and that, I can only think, is what the noble Earl meant when he told me that contract carriage work is being carried out in quite a legal way. So I want to persuade him again to ask his right honourable friend, the Minister, to issue under the appropriate section of the Act—I still maintain it can be done quite properly—a regulation to allow some temporary kind of licence to be given for legitimate contract carriage work. The licensing authority can endorse it with all the conditions and safeguards it likes, and the whole matter can be tidied up when the noble Earl or his right honourable friend brings legislation forward next Session or the Session afterwards—although perhaps in the Session afterwards there will be a different Minister of Transport. If he will undertake to do that, I shall be quite willing to withdraw my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 19, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I entirely agree, as I have done before, that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has an important point here, and even if I do not paint quite such a black picture in this matter as the noble Lord I do not thereby deny that it is a case for immediate action. I should perhaps point out—the noble Lord has used expressions like the "stupidity of the law" and "silly and ridiculous nonsense"—that it is a situation which has prevailed over twenty years and we are, so far as I know, the first Government to have a Bill in draft, at least as far as I am aware. I am not going to make prophecies about the future. I do not know what will be in the gracious Speech at the end of this month. I am going to assume it is not going to contain this Bill. Supposing that means that next Session we are not able to make any legislation on these lines, the noble Lord has suggested we should do it by regulation. I say quite frankly that is in some ways an attractive proposition, and we have looked at it closely, but I must make it clear to the House—and the noble Lord wavered as to whether it could be done under the 1930 Act or new powers under this Bill—that it has certain obnoxious features, because it involves drawing a regulation in anticipation of legislation. We have to think very carefully before we draw regulations in anticipation of bringing in an Act of Parliament. A second point is that it would undoubtedly involve the amendment of existing legislation; it could not be done without amending existing legislation. I think that makes it quite clear that we must approach this matter very cautiously.
I suggest that there are two criteria, even possibly in this framework, which might make it possible: first, that the matter should be simple, and secondly, that it should be non-controversial. If we look at this particular matter can we find that either of those requirements exist? I remind the House that Parliament has already had a try three times on the Statute Book and still has failed to make the courts implement the intention which Parliament had. That suggests that as a mere matter of drafting it is not extremely easy. Moreover, I would ask the noble

959
Lord to look at the Thesiger Report. In the Third Part he will see mentioned four different proposals for resolving this particular problem, and for one reason or another each of those proposals is shown to be impracticable. When I tell the House that one of those proposals was made by the Law Society of England, I think your Lordships will realise that a good deal of thought has been given to the subject and that it is not just an easy matter of resolution. That is one side of the problem, and I think to deal with it simply by regulation is not very easy.
The second criterion is, is it controversial? Strictly as a matter of Party politics it is not, but it is controversial in the broad general sense, and I will explain to the House briefly why. There are broadly two ways of running buses or road transport. One is the regular service at fixed fares, at fixed times, which runs the risk of running empty. The other is what might be described as the private carriage. They are convenient for those who want to do a particular journey. They are normally run quite full, and they are rather cheaper than the regular services. But they run irregularly and they are not open to the public generally. A moment's reflection will show that if you allow the private carriage to develop considerably, the immediate effect will be to "cream" the traffic, as the expression is, off the regular services. I am not suggesting for a moment that the noble Lord or I want that. What I am saying is that fixing the demarcation between these two points is a very difficult problem, bearing in mind the almost infinite variation of circumstances which exists. It is really for that reason that we think that this can go forward by Statute only after the full Parliamentary discussion and examination that that necessarily involves. I say this to the noble Lord. His proposal holds many attractions and we looked at it very carefully, but we were forced rather reluctantly to the conclusion that we could not adopt it. In those circumstances I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
3.20 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: At one time the noble Earl raised my hopes very high, because his opening sentence was that he agreed that this was a matter
960
which deserved immediate action. I thought that the sinner had repented once again. Then he tells me that it is impossible. I regret it very much. If the noble Earl is waiting until that halcyon day arrives when any Government may bring in simple and non-controversial legislation, I do not think any of us will be here.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: With great I respect, I said "by a regulation which involves amending Acts of Parliament". I said they have to be simple and non-controversial.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have seen many regulations which were neither simple nor non-controversial, regulations brought in by the present Government. However, that is for another time. What will happen is this: that the poorer classes of this country—and they are the classes concerned, because the contract carriage was the poor man's taxicab—will have to be robbed once again. It has been happening only these last three years, since 1952, because it was only in 1952 that the Court of Appeal came down so heavily upon this practice that nobody now dares run a service of this sort. I am certain that responsible members of Her Majesty's Government will be the last to desire that the poorer people, especially those who live in the rural areas, should be robbed of this amenity of the big towns during a season when entertainment is so necessary, just because of this ridiculous anomaly that could be got over in exactly the same way as hundreds of other anomalies have been got over.
The noble Earl shakes his head. I have had experience of Government Departments; I have been a junior Minister and I tell your Lordships this. My experience has been that there is no greater truth than the old adage of "Where there's a will there's a way." That holds 100 per cent. true in this particular case. The regulation that I have just mentioned, the regulation that regularises the estate carriage into being a private car and not a commercial vehicle, was absolutely impossible for four years, but somebody at last found a way to do it. It was done by regulation; and if there were good will behind this it could be done. However, the noble Earl has pronounced a Departmental judgment—I hesitate to think that it would be the judgment of senior Ministers who perhaps

961
have the milk of human kindness a bit more in their beings than the cold, hard Departmental viewpoint. I shall not ask your Lordships to divide on this Amendment because I do not think it is a matter to which I should like to subject your Lordships, especially those sitting opposite, to have to support what is supposed to be the Government opinion on this point. We will wait and see what the Government's programme is for the next Session, and if it contains provisions for rectifying this, I repeat, ridiculous nonsense, well and good. If it does not, then, if we on this side of your Lordships' House feel like it, we shall have to see what we can do about it. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule:
Regular Services
3.—(1) The undertakers may at any time apply to a licensing authority for public service vehicles for an authorisation to make, and a licensing authority for public service vehicles may at any time serve notice on the undertakers of the intention of the authority to direct the making of, such variations in all or any of the fares for the time being charged on all or any of the regular services to which this Part of this Schedule applies provided by the undertaking on any route or part of a route lying within the traffic area of that authority as may be specified in the application or, as the case may be, notice.
4. Any such application or notice shall be published and, after considering any objections or other representations which they may receive with respect to the proposals made therein, the licensing authority shall either—

(a) direct that the fares for the time being charged as aforesaid shall continue to be charged without any variation; or

(b) authorise or direct, by means of fixing, fares or maximum or minimum fares for the routes or stages affected, such variation in all or any of the said fares, whether or not affected by the application or notice, as the authority may consider reasonable or expedient in all the circumstances:

LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved to leave out Paragraph 3, and to insert:
"4.—(1) The undertakers may at any time apply to a licensing authority for public service vehicles to prescribe, or to make variations in, and a licensing authority for public services may, at any time, if requested so to do by any person being—

(a) the local authority of a district in which is situated any route or part of a route on which services are provided by the undertakers; or

962

(b) a body for the time being prescribed as a representative body for the purpose of this paragraph by regulations made by the Minister,

serve notice on the undertakers of the intention of the authority to direct the prescription of, or the making of variations in, the maximum rate or rates per mile to be charged on all or any of the regular services to which this Schedule applies and which are provided by the undertakers on any route lying within the traffic area of that authority;
(2) Any such application or notice shall state the maximum rate or rates per mile proposed to be prescribed or the variations proposed to be made, as the case may be."
The noble Lord said: When this matter was last considered by your Lordships, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill brought forward two persuasive arguments. The first was that what was suggested would throw us back to the clumsy method of Acts of Parliament for raising fares. Whatever may have been the errors in drafting, that was not the intention. Errors in drafting are not unknown even in Government Bills. The second point was this. The noble Earl said that an authoritative Committee had been considering the matter; that on that Committee there were three members who had had experience of local authorities; that there was a unanimous report in favour of the proposals to the Government and that it would be very difficult indeed to go against that recommendation. That was devastating; but I am sure that the noble Earl will not be surprised when I say that I have looked further into that aspect of the matter.
I must not be taken as saying one single word against those eminent gentlemen, but I think it would not be unfair to examine their position in relation to a representative body like the Association of Municipal Corporations. The noble Earl mentioned that one of these gentlemen was or had been the Provost of the City of Aberdeen. What the Government think of this recommendation so far as it applies to Scotland can be seen, in that it exempts the City of Glasgow entirely from his recommendation—just to show, I suppose, what Glasgow would think of a recommendation coming from the City of Aberdeen. The second gentleman was the Lord Mayor of Bristol. The noble Earl omitted to tell us, of course, that the tramways of Bristol are owned and worked by a private company and not at

963
all by the municipality. The third gentleman, I understand of great eminence in the law and in many other ways, has been or is an Alderman of the Metropolitan Borough of Fulham, which never had its own tramways and, of course, is at present served by London Transport. I think the noble Earl will agree that, in those circumstances, it is not unreasonable if one prefers the considered opinion of a representative body like the Association of Municipal Corporations to the views of these people, who were obviously there in no way representative of local authority opinion. I would not have mentioned it but for the fact that that was one of the important lines of the noble Earl's argument. Again, I say that we are indebted to the Committee and to those members for the great time and attention they gave and for this most valuable Report which they have submitted on the whole problem.
I would again emphasise that this is not a personal view; it is the view of a body of people who are in contact with problems so far as local authorities are concerned. The first point that I would make is this: that the proposals of the Government in Clause 2 and in the First Schedule represent a major change in the law. At present, under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the licensing authority for public service vehicles is empowered to exercise control only over fares charged on "public service vehicles," and tramways and trolley buses are, by that definition, excluded; they are not "public service vehicles." The Association, representing municipal passenger transport undertakers, are strongly opposed to the control of the fares on tramways and trolley vehicles being taken out of the hands of the transport undertakers and being placed in the hands of the licensing authority for public service vehicles. Tramways and trolley buses are operated under Local Acts which prescribe the maximum fares which can be charged and leave the actual fares to be charged in the hands of the local transport undertakers—a measure of local autonomy and control which I think is very much to be desired. These maximum fares in the various Acts were fixed to give a wide discretion to the transport undertakers to fix fares within the maxima; but, as we all know, the war and the fall in the
964
value of money necessitated the taking of temporary measures, and under the Defence Regulations the Minister of Transport, during the war and afterwards, used his emergency powers to give a measure of relief to the transport undertakers.
It is agreed on both sides that fresh legislation is needed to give transport undertakers the power to charge adequate fares on their tramways and trolley vehicles. But again, we feel that the Government are going the wrong way in their present proposals, and that it should be quite sufficient—this is a concession to, or rather an acceptance in some measure of, the view put forward by the noble Earl—to give the licensing authority, on request by the transport undertaker, power only to fix maximum rates per mile, leaving the transport undertaker free to vary fares within those maxima. Why I urge that on the Government is that it would be in accordance with the principles contained in the Local Acts enabling the undertakers to run these services.
It is true, of course, as I have already mentioned, that the Thesiger Report recommended putting the municipal authorities under the licensing authority or authorities. I will not say any more on that point, except that this would mean that the detailed control over each and every charge which can be made by a transport undertaker must be fixed by another body. This seems to be an unwarrantable interference in the responsibilities which, hitherto, have been given to the transport undertakers by Parliament. Parliament, in the past, in authorising the construction and operation of tramways and trolley vehicles, has invariably followed the practice of allowing the undertakers to determine individual fares within the maxima laid down by Parliament. I think the reason for that was that the transport undertaker was responsible to the local ratepayers and answerable to them for the proper running of the service, and Parliament has clearly thought it reasonable that they should be allowed to exercise control over their fares and charges, subject to the limits laid down in the public interest.
Considerable expenditure has been incurred by transport undertakers on capital equipment. Many are turning over to omnibuses, and they will have to remove the metal rails and overhead

965
wires, and standards and other fittings in the highway, and will have to reinstate the roads. The undertakers should be allowed within reason, as they were before the war, to build up reserve funds for the change-over and restoration. In their early stages, municipal transport undertakings were financed largely out of the rates, and they should not now be brought to a stage where rigid control will be exercised by an outside body over detailed matters Which should be entrusted to the discretion of the local authority undertakings. It was not considered necessary for the control of fares upon tramways and trolley vehicles to be given to the licensing authority at the time of the passing of the 1930 Act, and in my view and, I believe, in that of the Association, there is no reason why the local licensing authority should have minute control over such fares, as is now proposed by the Government. This is a fundamental change of principle, and such a fundamental change should not be made in a Bill which will not deal with the whole question of the licensing of road passenger services, and is obviously contrary to the wishes of the transport undertakers themselves.
The only difficulty which has arisen is that transport undertakers themselves lack adequate power to increase their fares to meet rising costs and to build up reserves to meet future liabilities, and it is wrong to make use of the necessity of legislation to cover this problem, which arises out of war conditions and changed monetary values, in order to foist upon transport undertakings so great a change in principle as that contemplated in Clause 2 and the First Schedule of the Bill, whereby they will be deprived of all real control over the fares and charges which they are to make on their own vehicles. Of the 42 tramway and trolley-bus undertakings now operating throughout the country, 38 are operated by municipalities. As a result of representations made on their behalf, the Glasgow Corporation are covered by a special provision in the Second Schedule, and, by definition, that special provision in the Schedule will also free a few more undertakings. This will occur because Glasgow and the undertakings referred to
966
have obtained monopoly powers in Local Acts in relation to transport services.
I do not want to press the case against the Government in relation to Glasgow in particular. I rather raise it on the merits of the case as put forward by the representative body, and as proposed in the Amendment. The local licensing authority should have the power to fix the maximum fares and charges and give the local authorities elbow room. It would prevent their going, on each and every occasion, for small increases, and at the same time would reserve to the local authorities the feeling that they were at least responsible to their own people and their own ratepayers for the proper conduct of the undertaking. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 31, leave out Paragraph 3, and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Burden.)

BRITISH GUIANA
3.40 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like, if I may, to intervene briefly to make, a statement on the report of the British Guiana Constitutional Commission, similar to that being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
The report of the British Guiana Constitutional Commission has been published to-day as a Command Paper. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, has discussed it with the Governor during his recent visit to British Guiana and Her Majesty's Government accept the conclusions of the report. Noble Lords will wish to study it and I will not, therefore, go into details now.
Briefly, the conclusions of the Commission amply justify the action taken by Her Majesty's Government last October. They state that the breakdown was not due to defects in the Constitution, but to the activities of those in control of the People's Progressive Party. They recommend that there is at present no alternative to a period of marking time in constitutional matters. They do not recommend a specific period, nor do Her Majesty's Government wish to be tied to

967
one. Her Majesty's Government, however, consider it desirable to set some maximum term to the personal appointment of the present members of the Legislative Council without prejudice to when it may be possible to hold elections again. The present appointments will therefore run for four years from January 1, 1954. During the period of this interim Government, it is our firm intention to do everything possible to fit the Colony for a return to representative government. In particular, there will be a thorough reform and extension of local government institutions.
I should like, in conclusion, to express the warm thanks of Her Majesty's Government to Sir James Robertson, formerly Civil Secretary of the Sudan, who was Chairman of the Commission and to the other two members, Sir Donald Jackson, Chief Justice of the Windward and Leeward Islands, and Mr. Woodcock, Assistant General Secretary of the T.U.C.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for the statement which he has just made, may I ask two questions? First, I notice from the statement of the Minister that the recommendation of the Commission, that there is at present no alternative to a period of marking time in constitutional matters, is accepted. Do Her Majesty's Government also accept the recommendations of the Commission on subsidiary constitutional matters mentioned in their report and also the recommendations concerning the electoral system? Is Her Majesty's Government's acceptance of the Commission's recommendations an entire acceptance, and not just an acceptance of that part which at first sight appears to be most important? I ask this question because it might be found in years to come that a real clean-up of the electoral system would go a long way to founding a proper Parliamentary Government in British Guiana. Secondly, the statement we have just heard lays some stress upon the extension of local government institutions. While I am sure that all noble Lords will welcome the extension of the local government institutions in Guiana, I would ask the Minister whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to substitute the extension of local government institutions for the bringing into force, in the reasonable future, of Parliamentary institutions?
968
In our view, the extension of local government institutions is a proper reform, and is not, in fact, a substitution for Parliamentary government.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, may I answer the last question of the noble Lord first? No; certainly there is no question in our minds of substituting local government for constitutional advance in the future, whenever that may be. It was felt, however, that possibly the best method of paving the way towards further constitutional advance was a reform of local government, with the idea that people might thereby gain experience and training in local government which would enable us to go forward, whenever it became possible, with further constitutional advance. As regards the electoral system, Her Majesty's Government do accept the report. Our first endeavours will be towards reform of the local government electoral system and local government generally, rather than to the main electoral reform. That is a matter which will have to be considered along with many other matters in British Guiana during the next few years. It is certainly something that Her Majesty's Government will bear fully in mind.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. One has not yet had sufficient time to consider his statement fully. I would only ask, is it not a fact that the situation in British Guiana represents a failure of British Colonial policy? Whatever the reasons may be, we have failed to put over our policy in British Guiana, and I have a feeling that this may also be the situation in other Colonies. Would the Minister look at the Information Services of Her Majesty's Government in British Guiana? Are the public getting from the Government in British Guiana a reasonable statement of what are our aims in that territory?
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot accept the noble Lord's last contention. I cannot agree that the failure of the Constitution was in any way at all due to failure in our Colonial policy. The failure of the present leaders of the People's Progressive Party derives from their failure to measure up to the responsibilities held out to them. As regards information services, the noble Lord will appreciate I that I have not been long in my present

969
position and have not had an opportunity to visit British Guiana myself. My impression is that everything is being done to put over a proper point of view to the people of British Guiana as a whole.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, some of us would like to study this Report more fully and we will leave our comment until we have had time to do so.

TRANSPORT CHARGES &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3.47 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, for the clarity and force of argument which he used in his Amendment and the sincerity with which he always speaks about local government affairs. As an old local government man myself, I always appreciate the way in which he speaks on these problems here. I never meant to suggest that members of the Committee were representative of anything. They were on the Committee for their own personal high qualities. I tried to convey to your Lordships only that it was not the sort of committee which could be accused of bias against local authority ideas. The purpose of this Amendment is to restrict the power of a licensing authority in respect of all tramway and trolley-bus undertakings to specifying the maximum charge per mile, and to leave the rest to be decided by the undertaker. I am sure the noble Lord appreciates that although this is primarily a local authority matter, a number of private companies are also included. In pleading former Acts of Parliament as a basis on which to proceed, the noble Lord forgets that whet most of those Acts were passed there was no licensing authority. There was probably no transport at all outside the urban area, and the need for co-ordination in that sense did not exist.
I will now turn to the second point. Before the war, prices on the whole were fairly steady and, if anything, tended to fall. To-day we face a very different problem. These factors must be borne in mind in considering what we are now doing. The noble Lord is not justified
970
in saying that this is a fundamental change. He said that to-day many local authorities are turning over to buses; but as soon as they go over to buses they will immediately come under the licensing authority. If they are so worried about this, there might be here an argument for them to stay with tramways; but that is perhaps just a debating argument. What is more serious is that the noble Lord expressed anxiety that the licensing authority would exercise detailed and minute control, and questioned whether regard would be had for the building up of reserve funds. I can set his mind entirely at rest: these are matters which will properly and rightly be considered, in so far as they are relevant, with the licensing authority. They are essential parts of what they have to examine.
Turning from that, I would tell the noble Lord of points which we do not like about his Amendment. There is a trifle of doubt whether it would achieve what he has in mind. We think it is much too clumsy an instrument to achieve its object—that is to say, the power exercised by the licensing authority would be very clumsy. I will return to that point in a moment. In the second place, it would not prevent the public from being charged anything that the undertaking cared to charge; it would not afford protection for the public in that respect. Thirdly, it would not achieve co-ordination for regulation of different forms of public transport. The difficulty is that the activities of these municipal authorities must be co-ordinated with the surrounding areas. If I may, I will go into a little more detail. I hope the noble Lord will not mind my saying that we think this is a clumsy arrangement. Fares are nearly always worked out on a tapering basis. You probably have a high point which tapers off at each end. The noble Lord wants us only to specify the maximum fare, presumably for the highest point in the taper.
Now suppose, for instance, that the rate justified was 1·55 pence per mile—that is, just over 1½d. It would be necessary for the licensing authority to approve a rate of 2d. You cannot have a smaller denomination than a halfpenny and fares must be multiples of a halfpenny; therefore the charge would be 2d. per mile. The result is a 30 per cent. variation at which the highest figure could be increased and would, of course, allow a

971
much greater margin at the lower end of the taper. I am giving this only as an example to show that the licensing authority would be quite unable to provide protection to the public against too high a fare. We think it is in the public interest that the public should have the right of making representations to an independent and impartial body, and that is what we have provided here. That is a point I must emphasise. Unless the licensing authority had a measure of power in this respect they would be unable to co-ordinate the activities of the tramways with those of other organisations running in the whole area. It is fundamental to the licensing authority's task to develop road services, whether trams or buses, as a whole.
I should like also to make this point. The Association of Municipal Corporations made their representations, as did other authorities, to the Thesiger Committee and they were considered in the framework when the Committee were making their Report. I would ask the noble Lord to consider that in a competitive sphere, where there is a tramway and buses running side by side, it might fall to the licensing authority to keep the bus fares up in order to prevent the trams from being run off the rails—in other words being financially unstable. So within this system they get a measure of support which would otherwise be entirely lacking. I should like the noble Lord to bear this in mind. If you were to impose the system, making local authorities or statutory undertakings completely independent, you might have an area of completely unregulated competition. I think we are all agreed that we do not want an area of completely unregulated competition. It is for those reasons that I should be glad if the noble Lord could see his way to withdraw his Amendment. I know the noble Lord is being pressed, but I can assure him that we have given this matter most careful consideration.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, notwithstanding the very high regard which I have for the noble Earl, in view of the feelings aroused in a number of local authorities responsible I am afraid that if the noble Earl cannot accept the Amendment for the reasons he has advanced there is only one thing to do—that is, to let it be negatived. I would say with respect to some of the points which
972
the noble Earl has advanced that I think they are all answered by one simple reply. In the first place, the local authority is responsible to its own ratepayers for the proper conduct of its undertaking, and if it does not run the undertaking in a proper way retribution will be swift and sure at election time. That applies irrespective of political Parties in a city or town. Therefore many of the fears which the noble Earl has expressed as to unregulated competition are groundless. While taking into account all that he has said, I feel that this measure of discretion within their own city or town area boundaries ought to be conceded to the local authorities responsible. The point has been given away, if you like, or conceded, that the local licensing authority should fix maxima, just as various Acts of Parliament have done in the past, and within that maxima local authorities would be bound to take into account the other competing forms of transport. After all, a local authority ought to be the best judge of what its own people desire within its own area.
Let me come down to the concrete. I should think that the authorities of the city of Sheffield, running their tramways and buses, would be more competent to decide how the various maxima should be applied within their own boundaries than a licensing authority sitting at Leeds. I say that with all due deference to the licensing authority at Leeds. I have given your Lordships one practical illustration of what I have in mind. I assure the noble Earl that anyone who is aware of the civic pride of many of these authorities knows how strongly they feel that this matter should be left to their own discretion. It is perhaps little use my saying this at the moment, but I agree that if the noble Earl had been in a position to accept the Amendment there would be a number of consequential Amendments. Those Amendments would be very readily forthcoming. If he cannot accept it and has spoken his last word on the subject, then I am sorry, but this Amendment must be negatived.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROTHES THE EARL OF ROTHES moved, in paragraph 4 (b), to leave out "reasonable or expedient in all the circumstances," and to insert instead:
"to be not unreasonable nor unfair in all the circumstances."

973
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Teynham. In doing so, I must first apologise to your Lordships because it was not possible for me to be present during the Committee stage. In the second place, I must declare an interest, inasmuch as I am connected with the passenger transport industry. During the Committee stage of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Teynham moved an Amendment to leave out the word "expedient" and insert the words "not unreasonable" to ensure that the procedure in relation to the fixing of fares for trams and trolley vehicles should be the same as for buses. He received, I think, some support from the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and also I believe from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. To what they said I can add that I know that those concerned feel strongly about the use of the word "expedient."
I think it is reasonable to assume that when the Bill was drafted, the Parliamentary draftsmen had a very close eye on the appropriate sections of the 1930 Act, and instead of prescribing what was to be done as "not unreasonable," for some reason, which I am bound to confess escapes me, they inserted the word "expedient." I think that the interpretation of the word might be not only harmful but very dangerous. Accordingly, my noble friend Lord Teynham has put down his present Amendment. I think that in Committee stage my noble friend in charge of the Bill said he would not insist on the word "expedient" but would like "in all the circumstances" to be included in the Amendment. He will see that the words are there. Therefore, I very much hope that the Amendment as at present drafted will meet with the noble Earl's approval and acceptance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 9, leave out from ("consider") to the end of the line, and insert ("to be not unreasonable nor unfair in all the circumstances:").—(The Earl of Rothes.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I would again lend my support to this Amendment. I hope the noble Earl will accept it. I am not going to weary your Lordships with all the arguments I put forward before and with those which were so well put forward by other noble Lords, except to give one illustration of
974
the danger of this word. In 1952 an unfortunate political happening took place in the elections to the London County Council. At that time the Transport Tribunal, sitting in an advisory capacity advising the Minister of Transport on London fares, advised an increase. The present Prime Minister, horrified at having lost the L.C.C. elections through the proposal for increase, refused to allow the Minister of Transport of the time to implement the advice he had received from the Transport Tribunal to increase the fares, because it was not politically expedient, thereby losing the British Transport Commission many millions of pounds which the unfortunate users of London Transport had to make up at a later date. I think that "expedient" is the worst word that could have been chosen. I think the Amendment gives adequate safeguards where safeguards are necessary. That is why I hope the noble Earl will see his way to accept the Amendment.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I also hope that the noble Earl will see his way to accept this Amendment, or one very like it. No one is fond of double negatives, and I should have thought it sufficient to say that fares "should be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances." In my early days in the public service I was indoctrinated by the noble Earl's present colleagues with the view that, when one had to tell some other authority what they should charge for services which they were required to render, the consideration to be held in mind was that what should be done should be reasonable to the public and fair to the operators. I cannot see why it has been thought necessary to cling to this notion of expediency as a factor in the quasi-judicial decision between the needs and convenience of the public, on the one hand, and the legitimate financial position of the undertaker, on the other. Without taking up your Lordships' time, I suggest that it would be better, even in this comparatively small matter, to stick to the principles which, in my experience, used to regulate, and which I certainly think ought to regulate, the action of any governing authority, whether they be licensing authorities or Ministers themselves on appeal.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Differences of opinion have been expressed this afternoon as to whether the licensing authority

975
should be a negative or positive body. I must say that I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, should support this Amendment. I thought that he and the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, were keen that the licensing authority should be a positive body.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: A reasonable one as well.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Certainly, that is in the Bill—yes, it is. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, that we do not like a double negative and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has selected very good words for his Amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Rothes, said the word "expedient" was harmful and dangerous. What is harmful and dangerous about it? The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, gave an example of political expediency, but that is not the sort of expediency which arises here. It is abundantly clear that what is intended is what is expedient in the minds of the licensing authority, and I am quite certain that no noble Lord is going to cast the slightest slur on the integrity of the officials who will hold this high office. If anyone imagines that the word "expedient" carries through to a Ministerial appeal, I would draw his attention to Paragraph 17 (3), of the First Schedule of the Bill, which says:
"On any appeal under this paragraph the Minister may make such order as he thinks fit. …"
The Minister need not even think it expedient; he just has to think that it is fit. That makes it abundantly clear that the word "expedient" has no meaning except in the minds of the licensing authority.
I should like to deal with the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has raised, which is really the essence of the word we are trying to get over. He said that what the licensing authorities should have in mind was what was "reasonable to the public and fair to the operators", but we want to make it clear that the whole ambit of public transport is taken into consideration. It may be a case where an independent bus company is running on the same route as a tram company; and here the public who use the trams and the tram operators are not the only people to be concerned, because
976
there is the bus operator running alongside. It is the responsibility of the licensing authority to consider all the elements of transport in the area under review. If I may put it shortly, we want a positive approach. The licensing authorities, if necessary, should take the initiative and make proposals. Your Lordships will observe the opening words of Paragraph 4 of the First Schedule:
"Any such application or notice shall be published and, after considering any objections or other representations which they may receive …"
and so on. That means that they take the whole position into consideration and then decide what they consider to be expedient.
I should like to carry this argument a step further. What will they consider to be expedient? It is quite likely that the competing company has to run unremunerative services outside the town. We want to make it clear that the whole of the co-ordination, including this factor, is taken into consideration. We do not want to confine ourselves to what is fair to the passengers in town and to the tramway. We want to look further than that. I should have thought that the noble Lord opposite would have supported me in that. It is quite clear that the licensing authority can take the initiative and must take the whole matter into consideration. As a matter of fact, I should have thought that the noble Earl, Lord Rothes, would have supported me in that, too, and would have been glad to see this point taken into full consideration by the licensing authority. That is why we think it is essential to make it clear in the words here that we mean them to be comprehensive and extensive in their consideration. We want to avoid any suggestion of the licensing authority being purely negative—in other words, "expedient" includes the whole range of representations made. On this matter the licensing authority are free to consider what they feel to be relevant. They have got to do that if they are to attain the desired measure of co-ordination inside and outside the urban area. On reconsideration, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, while the word "expedient" may include all the virtues to which the noble Earl has given tongue, it can, at the

977
same time, include all the vices, and that is what we are afraid of. I cannot see that the words the noble Earl has put forward do not embrace—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I apologise to the House for not asking permission to speak again. I will not say any more; I forgot that I was outside the Rules.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, may I be allowed to ask the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, whether he takes the view that "reasonable" means not unreasonably low, and not unreasonably high. I should have thought that "reasonable" left discretion to the licensing authority to have regard to what might be unreasonably high from the point of view of the public, or unreasonably low as creating quite unfair competition with some other operator. That is why I thought the words "fair and reasonable" left them all the possible discretion they would need to do justice.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, perhaps I may have the permission of your Lordships to answer that point. I think "reasonable" does cover it all. We are underlining it. They can base their judgment on either "reasonable" or "expedient." I want to make that clear.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: My Lords, I must confess that I am disappointed and not at all convinced by the reply of my noble friend. I will not detain your Lordships for longer than I can help, but the noble Earl asked me why we adopted two negatives. The answer is that we were copying the 1930 Act, which says that "fares shall not be unreasonable."
978
I agree with my noble friend in preferring to have the negative. As regards the examples he gave, I think that if the words were "fair and reasonable in all circumstances," that must give the proper scope for any example that he gave. I feel that the word "expedient" may mean something much more than any of us can contemplate, or intend it to mean, and it might be dangerously interpretated by the courts. I would ask my noble friend whether he cannot consider this point again, and to see whether he cannot put down something on Third Reading using the words "fair and reasonable in all circumstances." If he can give me an assurance that he will look at it again, I shall be pleased to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will speak again. I must point out that nobody has made any suggestion as to any undesirable meaning of "expedient." If any noble Lord brings it to my attention, I will certainly give it consideration.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, perhaps I may say this. It is not for me to interpret the word "expedient." It is the doubts I feel as to how it might he interpreted which have caused me to say what I have said. If the noble Earl will look at it again, I shall be pleased, with your Lordships' leave, to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ELECTRICITY REORGANISATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.14 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
4.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 31:
Application of Part III
"compensation on the basis of existing use" means compensation assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, as modified by sections fifty-one, fifty-three and fifty-four of the principal Act, not being compensation calculated on the basis of equivalent reinstatement or on the basis of prevailing use, and excluding any compensation for disturbance or for severance or injurious affection;
LORD MANCROFT: I am happy to think that on this Amendment we start our day's work on this Bill on a completely uncontroversial note. This is nothing more than a drafting Amendment. I say that advisedly, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is not in his place at the moment. Had he been here, I should have offered him an apology, because yesterday I observed that I thought Amendment No. 45 was only a drafting Amendment, and the noble Lord saw fit to differ. On examining the matter, I have come to the conclusion that he was right, and I was wrong. It was, perhaps, a quasi-drafting Amendment, a notional drafting Amendment, but not a purely drafting Amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, will be good enough to convey my apologies to Lord Silkin when he comes. However, this is a purely drafting Amendment. There are two reasons for it. The phrase "acquiring authority" is used in the definition clause of Part III in relation to acquisitions by agreement as well as compulsory acquisitions, which is not very helpful, and in any case the definition here is probably unnecessary. The second reason is that the definition of "compensation on the basis of existing use" comes more appropriately in Clause 68 (1)
980
alongside the definition of "compensation calculated on the basis of prevailing use." That I shall seek to put right in due course. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 on page 39 and insert—
("'the relevant interest' means the interest acquired;
'the relevant land' means the land in which the relevant interest subsists;
'the notice to treat' means the notice to treat in pursuance of which the relevant interest is acquired;").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved to leave out the definition of "compensation on the basis of existing use," and to insert:
"'Compensation' means compensation assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919;"
The noble Lord said: I am afraid that I cannot claim that this is only a drafting Amendment. The object of this Amendment is to reintroduce, in the case of the compulsory purchase of land, the well-tried principle of the open market value, a method which has stood the test of time and had been in operation from 1919 until the coming into effect of the 1947 Act. It is not intended in any way to affect the compensation in the other Parts of the Bill; it deals entirely with compulsory purchase. That there is a difference between compensation for refusal of permission to develop and compulsory purchase has, I think, generally been recognised, and is also referred to in the White Paper which was published in 1952 (Command Paper 8699) in paragraph 30.
That White Paper, as your Lordships know, after discussing the two possible alternative methods of compensation for compulsory acquisition—namely, the existing use value plus the claim, and the market value, eventually decided in favour of the first method. But even in this Bill, in Clause 34, which deals with cases in which the local authority changes its mind, the price to be paid in compensation on compulsory purchase is the market value. I think that shows a little that the Government feel that the market value is, in fact, the fairer way of compensating. We must not forget that, unlike refusal of planning permission, compulsory purchase is an irrevocable step;

981
and that it is necessary I do not think anybody in this House would deny. But it has always been the principle that full compensation, which, in the past—that is, until the 1947 Act came into operation—has always been the market value, should be paid.
I do not dispute for one moment the fairness of the valuation made under the 1947 Act, and if we were discussing this Bill in 1947 I think there would not be a strong case for this Amendment. But even then, one would have to assume that, to be fair, any compulsory purchase would take place soon after the Act had been passed. But since 1947 there have been two important changes. The first, as we all know, is the fall in the value of money. I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, knows better than I do the exact extent of the fall in the value of the £ between 1948 and 1954. This, obviously, has to a great extent automatically reduced the value of the claim. The second factor, and one of which we are justly proud, is the success of the Government's housing programme, getting the building going and the improvement in the materials position, all of which has meant that the prospects of early development are better now than any valuer could have foreseen when he was making his valuation under the 1947 Act. Therefore, the deferment factor which he would then have applied would have been a pessimistic one. In fact, in most cases development can probably take place earlier than could have been foreseen.
I submit to your Lordships that these two factors, together with the fact that there is now a free market in land, makes the system of compensation to be paid under this Bill unfair. On the Second Reading a great many cases of anomalies were quoted, and I do not intend to repeat them. I should, however, like to quote one case. It is perhaps a special one as it concerns minerals, and the figures were given to me to show that minerals should be treated differently from other land, as perhaps they should. But I think a great many of the factors in this case apply generally to all land. In this particular case it is assumed that an operating company in 1947 had 100 acres of minerals, and that those minerals would take ten years to work, starting in 1967. I will not go into all the figures, but the result of the calculation is that
982
there is an existing use value of £5,000, and the value of those minerals which are to be worked in 1967 is assumed, in 1947, to be £6,800. Then there is the rental value of the land, which in all comes to £8,700, less the existing use value which is £5,000, giving a Part VI claim of £3,700. When 1967 comes, if that land were to be acquired compulsorily, the compensation would be the existing use value, £5,000, plus the Part VI claim, roughly £3,800, giving a total of £8,800. But the value of the minerals which at that time would be ready to work is estimated to be just over £14,000. So that if that operator had his land compulsorily acquired, and had to buy equivalent minerals elsewhere, he would have to spend over £14,000 to do it. Therefore, he would be out of pocket by nearly £6,000—even assuming that prices remained at the same level as they were in 1947, which in fact we know they have not. Of course, in that example there can be no question that the increase in the value of the minerals was in any way brought about by the efforts of the community; it was due to the efforts of the operator himself.
I feel that what is wrong in that case is the method of compensation. I believe it is wrong that two people living in the same area, planned in the same way, should fare differently if one suffers from the accident of compulsory purchase—because it could operate both ways. In an area in which development is permitted, it is probable that the market value would be higher; but in an area which, say, prior to 1947 had been zoned as an industrial area, and had since been zoned (as might well happen) as a green belt, the local authority might have to pay more under the 1947 Act—that is, more under this Bill as it stands at the moment—than they would have to pay by adopting the basis of market value. In Alice in Wonderland there was only one Red Queen dispensing rather arbitrary justice, but I feel that unless we can do something about this clause, local authorities up and down the country will be forced, however unwillingly, either to commit injustice, or, if they are not going to do that, to buy land which may not be the most suitable for their purpose to avoid inflicting an injustice. I hope that the noble Viscount will be sympathetic to

983
this Amendment to see whether we cannot do something to improve this clause and avoid these injustices. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 5, leave out lines 5 to 13 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I want to say something on this Amendment. The noble Lord who moved it has covered the ground very adequately, but I think it is worth looking at the reasons which might be argued against this Amendment. There is no doubt that the Bill, as the noble Lord said, recognises the fact that compulsory notice can in present circumstances often be unfair; otherwise we should not have put in Clause 34, which is, in effect, an elaborate procedure for giving warnings to purchasers of property of various kinds that if they are not careful they may be badly treated. Further, in Part IV of the Bill, which deals with revocation of planning permission, it is recognised that unfairness would be committed by the compulsory purchase price. Again, in Clause 53, there is a reference to the free market value. It does not operate in the same way as the point we are now discussing, but it does show in the make-up of this Bill that it is impossible to ignore the fact that in many cases the market price will be higher, or possibly even lower, than the compulsory purchase price.
For that reason, I think that a reconsideration of this clause, in the form proposed by the noble Lord or some other form, could be effected without completely upsetting the Bill and without affecting all the other provisions with regard to compensation for planning refusal and so on. In the White Paper the reasons given against the use of market value are mainly those based on the effect of planning. There is the inference there that it is the development plan which creates the value. I do not know that I would go so far as to say that. Is it not the development plan which recognises that in certain parts of the county or county borough there is the need for development and the opportunity for development? The plan is therefore written down on the basis of what the opportunities are. Is it not those opportunities and potentialities of the land and buildings there which create the value and call for the development
984
plan to allow them to be carried out? In the same way, planning permission does not, in fact, create the entire value of the development. It is the person who wants to develop, who has the land which appears to be suitable—he may have taken the trouble to acquire it in the past; it may have come to him in some other way. All the planning permission does is to say to him that it is perfectly right and proper for him to do what he asks permission to do.
The inevitable result is that, where planning permission is given, the value of the property must increase, and where it is refused, it remains at the value given in the earlier parts of the Bill to-day. We cannot deny the fact that planning permissions influence the values of different areas of land. There is no doubt that the tendency is for the value to increase when the person owning the land, wishing to sell it for building, or the builder having bought it for building, gets permission to develop. So I can hardly agree that it is the development plan and the planning consents which create the high values, except that in the case of planning consents, whether you accept the fair market price or not, it is inevitable that the planning decisions will control the price of land.
The other point made is that if the fair market value is used, it will mean that individuals owning property are profiting at the expense of development undertaken by the public in some form or another. Where a factory has been built at the expense of the factory owner, who has bought the land next to it for extensions, it would seem to me that the increase in the value of such land next to the factory, bought for the purpose of extending the factory, would, if it by that means achieves any increase of value, achieve it at the expense and instigation of the owner of the factory who is conducting a profitable enterprise. It used to be said that before the 1932 Act began to operate there was a very strong feeling that many people were—as indeed they were—buying land just because a new road had been built, and profiting in that way. That, I think, was undoubtedly true. But we have now got planning control, and planning control will prohibit that sort of thing in these days. I think none of the arguments are so strong as they would appear to be on the face of it.

985
The further argument is used in the White Paper that one result will be that local authorities will have to pay much too high a price. No reference is there made to other acquiring authorities, and if the objection is, as it appears to be, the high price of property to local authorities, one must remember that a large number of the properties bought by local authorities are bought with Government grant, nearly always on loan, and the Government will pay some proportion or give some grant towards it. Then there is the further case of the many statutory undertakers Who have compulsory powers; and there I think that this clause becomes even more unreasonable. For example, in the case of a new power station, is there a great difference in the final cost of the power station if you pay what is thought to be the market value of the land under the 1919 Act, or the value agreed to under this proposed Bill? The power station may cost many hundreds of thousands of pounds, and the difference in the value of the land might well be below a thousand. That is one case, but there are plenty of others.
Therefore I ask myself, what are the reasons for this policy? There seems to me no overpowering reason which would prevent the actual payment of these amounts if they were thought to be fair and due. There seem to be very strong arguments against being unfair to people, and very many disadvantages. Still, it could become worse as time goes by. My noble friend said that in 1947 such a proposal as we are now considering in this Bill could have been thought to be reasonable. The values we have got in this Bill are the then values. Since then, values of land have increased considerably. I should feel it perfectly logical to have stuck entirely to the 1947 Act. It was much disliked by many people when it came in, but at least it was logical. I fear that altering it in this way and still keeping the 1947 values will create more inconsistencies than we should otherwise have had. What will happen in future supposing the value of the pound goes on falling?—though one hopes very much that it will not. Will the land to which claims attach last for ever? There will be a
986
time when, at any rate in some areas, there will be no more land with a claim on it. That was the idea of the 1947 Act, and it would have been fair enough. If the 1947 Act could have held values down generally to existing use, there would not have been these disparities which we are having to face. There will be more difference in the market value as we know it and in the value of the prices proposed in this Bill than there is now.
In 1947, in the valuations for these claims, there was a general feeling that the number of years' deferment then introduced was such as unreasonably to reduce the values agreed. I mention this point to emphasise the fact that it seems impossible that we can go on for ever, having once allowed the 1947 rigid system to be altered, as it is to be altered. We cannot go on for ever relying on that principle for these valuations, because it seems inevitable that the disparity will become larger. Something will have to be done. There will be the effect that local authorities will be even more reluctant to do what they feel to be a serious injustice. There are many thousands of people who own small plots of land which they have bought for their own purposes, people who are by no means well off, and it does happen from time to time that local authorities come across these Properties and feel they need to have them. They are reluctant to purchase the properties from people when they feel that they are committing injustices. There was some correspondence in the Press recently from various people engaged in local government who expressed that view—I expect many of your Lordships have already met it. I have met it in local government work, a reluctance on the part of the council to enforce compulsory purchase when they know that the price is unfair. I agree that the change in this Bill, adding the claim to the existing use value, will help in that direction, but I cannot believe that it will be long before market values in general will rise higher still. Something must be done about this problem. Whether now or later, or in what form, is perhaps open to argument, but the method suggested in the Amendment moved by my noble friend is a simple one; it is easy to understand, and it has worked well in I the past.
4.43 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend who moved this Amendment said quite frankly to your Lordships that it was, if I may paraphrase his words, a peg on which to hang a discussion on the point that compensation ought to be on the basis of market value. I am very glad and welcome the opportunity of that discussion. But I should like, before I deal with the points which my noble friends have raised, just to make one thing clear. So far as the practical results are concerned, apart from the strength or otherwise of the relevance of this Amendment, compensation on the basis which we have suggested, and compensation on the basis of existing use as an element in that compensation which we suggest and which we are moving by the Amendment that my noble friend Lord Mancroft moved a short time ago from this to another clause, is the foundation for the provisions of Clause 32, which lay down that on a compulsory acquisition in future the unexpended balance, or the appropriate share of it, will be added to compensation on the basis of existing use.
It would be idle for me to pretend otherwise than that this is one of the cornerstones of the Bill, that compensation for development value shall be limited to development value existing in 1947. To substitute compensation at market value would require the Government to discard the basic principle of the Bill; and, indeed, if Clause 32 were left to provide in addition for payment of the unexpended balance, acquiring authorities would find themselves in many cases having to pay twice for development value. Therefore, from a practical point of view, I cannot pretend for a moment that I can accept this Amendment but, as I said, I very much welcome the opportunity of hearing and putting some further considerations before my noble friends who have supported it with such strength and eloquence.
I should like to follow their track and go, as they have done, to the White Paper of November, 1952, to which my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney referred by its number, and ask my noble friends to look again at paragraph 30 of that Paper, which I hope they will agree crystallises the views announced by the Government on this point. Your Lordships will remember that that paragraph begins:
988
"The question what compensation should be paid on compulsory acquisition is more difficult. But in practice the choice must lie between acquisition at current market value and acquisition, as proposed, at the current existing use value plus the 1947 development value."
I think that now everyone will agree that the matter is narrowed down to these alternatives. The paragraph goes on:
"When development plans have been approved, the market value of land will depend in large measure on the prospects of profit from the uses for which, in the light of the plan, permission is likely to be granted."
I ask your Lordships to bear that in mind, because I think that it has considerable relevance to the somewhat gloomy prognostications in which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, indulged just now. That is a factor which must be borne in mind and must always be considered when one is indulging in speculations as to the increased divergence between those two prices, as my noble friend, quite understandably, did in the course of his argument a few moments ago.
The paragraph to which I was referring goes on:
"Payment for development value at current market prices would therefore expose public authorities to the necessity of paying high prices for sites where, in the light of the plan, those prospects were high, and owners to receiving low prices where the land was reserved, as sometimes it must be, for some comparatively unprofitable use."
It was quite obvious that my noble friend Lord Ridley had not only read that paragraph but had considered it carefully, and had been impressed, as everyone who listened to his speech must have been, by the difficulty which that part of the paragraph presents to any one advancing the case which my noble friend advanced a few moments ago. Both my noble friends took examples. I do not quarrel with that for a moment, but the argument on an inductive basis, an argument from examples, is compelling, I say with great respect to my noble friends, only if the examples range over a field which gives one at the end of the day a reasonably inclusive picture from which to make deductions. I should like (I am sure that my noble friends who have argued so fairly would like this to be done) just to give one or two other examples which the Committee must face before coming to a decision in this matter. Let me take, for example, land in the area of a new town the value of which is due almost

989
entirely to public expense. The public would have to pay for that value. There is a balancing factor. I am not saying that I am entirely free from that temptation which besets all those presenting an argument, to take examples favourable to his point of view; but what I am entitled to say is that, if I can quote an example such as that, then the examples of my noble friends are not wholly inclusive in this matter.
But let me take another the other way. Land shown on the plan for roads, open spaces, et cetera, would be bought, and must be bought, at an unfairly depressed value. I listened most carefully to everything that my noble friend Lord Ridley said, and I confess that I could not see his answer to that point, where the landowner is hit by these depressed values such as I have mentioned. Then I take another. Where the land available for development was restricted to save agricultural land, values would tend to rise, and the rise would be due entirely to a public decision. I am not for a moment saying that my noble friends cannot find difficult examples; they have found them and they have put them before the Committee. I can do it too; we can all go on doing that. Then we have to face the point—and this is what I put to my noble friends: what conclusion do we draw? The conclusion I suggest to the Committee is this: that plans and planning invariably re-distribute values. I do not see how that can be avoided. I have memories at the back of my mind of the rather dramatic words and the new phrases which my old friend Lord Uthwatt put in his Report when he dealt with that point. Despite my language of yesterday he was, as one or two of your Lordships know, an old friend of mine. But that is a fact from which one cannot get away; whether one agrees with the terminology or the conclusions, that effect is inescapable—that planning and plans invariably re-distribute values.
What are you to do about it? I suggest that what you ought to do is to attempt to insulate compensation against the fluctuations. That, surely, is a sound principle, and that is what we have tried to do in this Bill. My noble friend Lord Ridley, in what I hope he will forgive me for saying was the nadir of pessimism into which his speech fell, suggested that the only alternative was to go back and take
990
the 1947 Act. My noble friend did not explain what his conclusion led to—that is, back not only to the £300 million, but back to the development charge. I ask the Committee to consider—if the development charge is to apply, as it did, 100 per cent.—whether that is going to help the wider purpose which my noble friends had in mind, namely, the encouragement of development in this country. I am not going to argue the principle which your Lordships have argued on the White Paper on the 1953 Act, when it was a Bill, and with which I dealt shortly on the Second Reading of this Bill, but I ask my noble friends to consider the inevitable bourne to which they are driven. If I may introduce a little levity after a serious speech, in the words of the old saying, it is:
"A Bourne from which no Hollingsworth returns."
I do ask my noble friends, having had the opportunity to develop the arguments and, I am sure, delighting us all with the development of those arguments, not to press the Amendment at this stage.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I should be glad of the opportunity to say a few words in response to the noble and learned Viscount. I think perhaps I gave the impression of having rather more enthusiasm for the 1947 Act than is really the case; but at least it was a logical and complete set-up. Many of us disliked it. I was one of those who was most critical of it; but at least it all hung together—that was my point. I certainly should not have liked to see it continue with its 100 per cent. development charge. I am bound to admit that there are cases, such as those quoted by the noble and learned Viscount, which have quite the opposite effect to those which were quoted when I was speaking, and also many cases which could be quoted. I think perhaps there is a danger, on a subject like this, or on an Amendment, of falling into the error of making a Second Reading speech on the whole question of planning. I wish to avoid that because, of course, the time for that is past. As I see it, the matter will have to be left simply with the statement that almost certainly there will be quite a large number of cases as the years go by, in which people feel they have been hardly treated by this clause, and of purchasers, such as local authorities and

991
others, realising that they are, in many cases, paying less than they ought to. I have a feeling that at some stage or another that difficulty will have to be dealt with. It may be that what this Bill proposes is the right step to take now. I do not know what my noble friend feels about his Amendment, but I feel that that is probably the right view to take of it for the time being.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. I cannot say that I am entirely convinced by it. I feel that if we cannot go the whole way there may perhaps be some way of making the claims a little more in line with present values, taking into consideration the fall in the value of money. I do not know whether one could add a small percentage to meet that. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MANCROFT: In view of Amendments which have been made and are proposed to be made in Clause 32, subsection (3) of Clause 31 is now superfluous. I beg to move accordingly that it be deleted.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 19, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Compensation to include unexpended balance of established development value]:
5.0 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved to leave out all words after the words "subject to" in subsection (1) to the opening word "for" in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) and insert:
"section thirty-four of this Act there shall be added to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest apart from the provisions of this section—

(a) where the relevant interest is the only interest (other than excepted interests) subsisting at that time in any of the relevant land which has such a balance, an amount equal to that balance at that time less, in a case when the relevant interest is subject to a rent-charge, any rental liability of that interest within the meaning of the Schedule (Apportionment of unexpended balance of established development value) to this Act; or

992

(b) where the relevant interest is one of two or more interests (other than excepted interests) so subsisting, an amount equal to so much of that balance at that time as is ascertained in accordance with the provisions of the said Schedule to be attributable to the relevant interest:

Provided that no payment shall be made by virtue of this section if the relevant interest is a tenancy granted on such terms that, immediately before the service of the notice to treat, the person entitled to that interest is prohibited from carrying out any new development of the relevant land.
(2) Regulations made under this section shall provide"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the new Schedule to which it refers, set out in Amendment No. 151, need to be read together. They have a formidable appearance but make no real change in the principles already established in the clause. The main object of these two Amendments is to do away with the need for a set of regulations, and so meet requests made in another place that, as far as may be possible, the Bill should be self-contained. In effect, we now have a Schedule instead of a set of regulations, and I hope that pleases your Lordships. The clause as it stands provides that on compulsory acquisition of land which has an unexpended balance there shall be paid to the owner of each interest which is acquired so much of the balance as is attributable to that interest. Subsection (2) goes on to specify what is attributable where there are only two interests in the land, and subsection (3) provides for regulations to apply subsection (2) to more complex cases where three or more interests subsist.
In dealing with these more complex cases, the draftsman has found it convenient to generalise and to provide a new set of rules which will apply in all cases; those covered by the clause already, as well as those not covered. In doing so, he has taken the opportunity of improving the drafting of the clause and making one or two minor changes (such as the introduction of a reference to rent charges) which would have been necessary if the Schedule had not been prepared. It will be noted that, even as proposed to be amended, the clause still calls for regulations. These are of a purely procedural character and, in practice, will doubtless be included with similar regulations called for by other provisions in the Bill.
It may be helpful if I remind noble Lords of the complication involved in

993
deciding how much of an unexpended balance is attributable to a particular interest. The source of the complication is the practice in assessment of compensation on the basis of existing use value under Part V of the 1947 Act where more than one interest—that is, freeholder and leaseholder—is being acquired. The compensation paid to the freeholder will depend on the value of the right to receive the rent from the lessee for the term of the lease. If that rent is higher than it would be if the lessee were paying for existing use only the freeholder will, to that extent, receive compensation, which is really compensation for loss of development value—regardless of whether the land acquired has an unexpended balance. Since the freeholder is thus getting, under the ordinary law of compensation, something for development value, he ought not to get it a second time from the unexpended balance. That principle, as I have indicated, is settled in the clause as it stands, by reference to cases where only a freeholder and a lessee are in question.
One must also take into account not only what the owner of each interest will get under the ordinary law of compensation based on the right to receive a rent, but also the effect on the owner of each interest of being relieved of such liability as he may have had to pay a rent or a rentcharge. The acquisition will itself relieve those concerned of their liabilities, and the Schedule accordingly balances the relief from no longer having outgoings against the loss of what was formerly coming in. Though a complicated matter, it is not one of principle but only of procedure. This point was made strongly in another place in the course of debates there. By this rather full readjustment and rearrangement, we have, I hope, met that point to your Lordships' satisfaction also. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 31, leave out from second ("to") to ("for") in page 40, line 38, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [Additional compensation for works]:
LORD MANCROFT: This is a drafting Amendment, which is consequential on Amendment No. 60. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 24, leave out from ("constructed") to ("a") in line 27 and insert ("then, subject to the next following section, there shall be added to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest apart from the provisions of this section").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34:
Protection for prospective purchasers
34.—(1) It shall be the duty of the council of a county borough or county district, on application made to them in writing by a person who proposes to purchase an interest in land in the borough or district, to give notice to the applicant, within twenty-eight days of the receipt of the application, stating whether or not the council propose to acquire within the next five years (whether compulsorily or otherwise) any interest in that land or in any part thereof, or have been notified by any public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers of a proposal of that authority so to acquire any such interest.
(2) If—

(a) the council of a county borough or county district have, in accordance with the preceding subsection, given notice to a person that the council do not propose to acquire within the next five years such an interest as is mentioned in that subsection, and have not been notified of any such proposal of another authority as is therein mentioned; and

(b) the person to whom the notice was given has within three months after the giving of the notice completed the purchase to which the application related and given notice of the completion to the said council; and

then, for the purpose of assessing the compensation payable it respect of the acquisition of that interest, subsection (4) of section fifty-one of the principal Act shall not apply to any planning permission in force at the time of the notice referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:
"(1) It shall be the duty of the council of a county borough or county district to record in a register to be maintained by them for that purpose any notification received by them from any public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers of a proposal by the said public authority so to acquire any interest in land situated within the area of the local planning authority:
Provided that no such notification by a public authority shall be recorded in a register maintained in accordance with this subsection unless:—

(i) the notification is accompanied by a certified copy of a resolution passed by the

995
public authority determining that the said public authority propose to acquire the land compulsorily or otherwise; and either

(ii) planning permission has been obtained or is not required for the use to which the public authority propose to put the land when acquired; or

(iii) such a consent is deemed to be granted by virtue of section 35 of the principal Act or of any other enactment; or

(iv) the proposed development is permitted by virtue of a development order made by the Minister in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the principal Act or of any other powers enabling him in that behalf.

(2) It shall be the duty of a council of a county borough or county district on application made to them in writing by a person who proposes to purchase an interest in land in the area of the authority to give notice to the applicant within twenty-eight days of the receipt of the application stating whether or not the authority propose to acquire within the next five years, whether compulsorily or otherwise, any interest in that land or in any part thereof, or have recorded any notification from any public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers of a proposal of that authority so to acquire any such interest."
The noble Viscount said: This clause is designed to protect the interests of prospective purchasers, an intention which all noble Lords will doubtless gladly support; but the process by which this protection is given appears to involve a procedure hitherto unknown in town planning, which some think might have very undesirable consequences, and which in any event deserves full consideration by your Lordships. The procedure appears to affect more interests than that of the prospective purchaser. It affects the local authority, the previous owner and the statutory bodies making these notifications. I will examine the position of each of these interests. The position of the purchaser appears to be plain sailing. He has to prove his bona fides. He applies for what I will call, for convenience, his clearance certificate; and either he gets it or he does not. If he gets a certificate he knows that his land cannot be acquired by anybody for five years except at full market value.
The position of the local authority, however, seems a good deal more complicated. Their duties, as laid down by this clause, are twofold: they have to register, and they have to give or withhold certificates according to that register. A small point arises here which can be easily answered but which has caused certain questioning—namely, whether the
996
local authority, in registering these notifications, have to take any initiative. I presume that they have not, and that the initiative in these notifications should come from the authorities who make the notifications. Possibly we could have a reassurance on that point. The registering authorities do not appear to have any power of challenging the notifications. If, for example, some authority notified their interest in two alternative sites, presumably the local authority would have no option but to register both. I imagine that they would have some power of protest if the notifications were not submitted in sufficient detail to enable them to give or withhold their certificates.
Local authorities have numerous other duties. They have, for example, either planning powers or delegated planning powers. I should like to ask specifically whether it is the intention that these notifications should be given official cognisance by the local authorities in their planning capacity, or whether they should not. There is nothing in the clause to suggest that they should, or that the authority would be in any way out of order in giving consent to build, notwithstanding the notification. An authority might well argue that these notifications have received none of the consideration which has hitherto been applied to all planning applications, that no objections to them have been considered and, therefore, that they have no legal status whatever, and if a planning application were submitted, not by a prospective purchaser but by an existing owner, they would be unable to issue any certificate or give any reason for refusing, provided always that the application conformed with the development plan.
That may be so, but it might appear to the public, and indeed to the authority itself, that there was something a little contrary to logic if, as it were, they were to issue warning notices with one hand and planning consents with the other, for quite different purposes and for exactly the same land. I should have thought that the authorities issuing notifications to the local authorities might feel some sense of grievance if, when they came to acquire their land in conformity with their notices, they found it already covered with bricks and mortar. If, on the other hand, local authorities are supposed to take these

997
notices into official cognisance, the process seems to be analogous to the designation procedure of the 1947 Act, without any of the safeguards, either to the owner or to the authority, contained in Section 5 of that Act. Certainly this does not appear in any way to conform with the statement of policy made by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, in the debate last week in this House. I cannot believe that that is the intention. If it were, of course, other questions would arise. One question would be whether, if an owner had been refused permission to develop, he had also a claim for compensation. Or would the Minister, on appeal, say that in such circumstances the application should be deemed premature?
Local authorities not only have duties, but they have views. We often hear the term, "the public interest," but there is not always entire unanimity of view as to what the public interest is. There have been suggestions that even in Whitehall the views of Government Departments as to what constitutes the public interest are not the same, as might be apparent to anyone who happened to serve in a Government Department during the war. Indeed, the remark was attributed (probably quite incorrectly) to one prominent Cabinet Minister that "Whitehall is a jungle in which it is a case of every man for himself." However that may be, what is demonstrably true is that local opinion and Whitehall opinion do not always coincide. I would instance the Gatwick aerodrome proposition, over which a battle has been raging for a number of years; the proposal to put a power station on the South Bank of the Thames, which caused a debate in this House; and the question of the retention by the Army of parts of Ashdown Forest, which also gave rise to a debate in this House, and necessitated a personal visit from two Cabinet Ministers. Then there was the proposal of the Gas Board to establish a gasworks in a very controversial position near Oxford. There may be other examples, but I am convinced that for every one such case which reaches national importance there are a score that are of localised importance. With the rise in the rates, many local authorities have got into the habit of taking an almost morbid interest in the creation of new rateable values. I may be wrong but I think that on occasion—not every time
998
—some of those notifications may precipitate a number of controversies that will, as it were, go off at half-cock.
The County Councils Association are concerned, and indeed rather mystified, as to the probable effects of this clause. They fear that some public authorities may think it prudent, particularly when some project is in its initial and, therefore, rather vague state, to notify their interest in much larger areas of land than they will really need, merely to protect their financial interests. And it would not be surprising if they did so, considering the extraordinary disparity between the compulsory purchase price and the market price that already exists in some areas. But if they do so notify, the County Councils Association fear that, even indirectly, large areas may tend to become sterilised, and that the implementation of the development plans may be impeded. They farther point out that there appears to be no limit to the number of times a notification may be repeated, and thus that this sterilising effect may be indefinitely prolonged, though I agree that it would probably be only rarely that that would happen. So they have devised the series of Amendments which appear on the Marshalled List, the effect of which would be, first, to subject these notifications to a more formal procedure, and, secondly, to make them pass through the normal planning machinery. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 40, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsections.—(Viscount Gage.)
5.20 p.m.
LORD HYLTON: I should like to support what the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has said on this matter. The noble Viscount has explained his Amendment with such clarity that I do not intend to keep the Committee far longer than is absolutely necessary. I do not wish to cover ground which has already been so well covered, but I should like to say this: that the administration of town and country planning depends almost entirely on the confidence that the public feel that they are getting a fair deal under this type of legislation. If a position arises, as described by my noble friend, in which a district council, or the council of a county borough, on the one hand, is

999
registering these notifications and, on the other, is dispensing planning permission which does not take into account these notifications—and I do not see how they can take them into account—the public will be not only mystified but extremely annoyed, because this sort of "double dealing," as it were, the issuing of planning permission when it is known that somewhere in the background there is a notification that something different is going to be done at some future date, will not appeal to the public. Moreover, I very much doubt whether it is going to be of much value for what is intended, the notification of the prospective purchaser. Finally, the owner is the last person, so far as I can see, to receive any notice that any notification has been received. I hope that when he replies, the noble and learned Viscount will put some of these fears at rest, because as it stands I do not believe that this clause is practicable or will effect what it purposes to do.
LORD SILKIN: I could not help feeling some slight amusement at the speeches of the noble Lords who moved and supported this Amendment. The 1947 Act provides for what is called designation—that is to say, notification to the public at large that it is the intention of the local authority to acquire certain land. That provision has been very much criticised. It was criticised in the speeches of noble Lords opposite during the Second Reading of this Bill. I think it must have been overlooked that the intention of designation was not only to protect the owner of land, to put him on notice that his land will probably be acquired within a certain period, but also to protect the purchaser, who is entitled to know that the land he is proposing to buy may be acquired compulsorily. It seems to me that the objections failed to take into account the interests of the purchaser.
In Clause 34 we have a similar provision in this Bill. Here again, the Government are deliberately going out of their way to make provision for notifying a prospective purchaser that the land in which he is interested may possibly be acquired. I should have expected noble Lords opposite, who were so opposed to the principle of designation, to have moved the deletion of this clause altogether. I know that the noble Viscount
1000
has an Amendment down to delete Clause 34, but his serious proposal is to amend it and make it more efficient; so he is not really opposed to the principle of designation at all, nor is the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who supported him. That is a great comfort to me after the criticisms which the principle of designation has received.
Coming to the Amendment itself, I feel that while the intention of Clause 34 is excellent, and I would congratulate the Government on that clause (possibly it is the only one on which I could conscientiously congratulate them), I feel that it does not altogether carry out the intention and will create difficulties, which I think the Amendment is designed to meet. It deals with proposals. I wonder what is a "proposal" to acquire land. It is not an intention; it is something which may take place over a period of five years. A proposal which may not materialise for five years can be a very vague sort of proposal. In his Amendment the noble Viscount wants to crystallise that by saying that such a proposal must be approved formally by the acquiring authority. If that were the case, the period of five years is quite unnecessary. If an acquiring authority really intended to acquire land compulsorily and had gone through all the procedure, I should have thought they would do it in far less than five years. Therefore, I imagine that it is the intention of the Government in this clause not to go so far as a definite decision in their conception of a proposal; it can be just a somewhat vague intention, or an idea that the authority might acquire land within that period.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount what is the duty of a local authority who believe that they may want a piece of land but are not certain whether or not they will want it within five years. Is that a proposal such as he has in mind in Clause 34? What are they to do about that? Ought they to notify a prospective purchaser that, while there has been no decision on the matter, it is on the cards, so to speak, that they might purchase within five years? Then there is the point that both the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Viscount raised. In such a case—or even if the position is a little more definite but falls short of a definite decision—what is the

1001
duty of a planning authority who receive an application to develop this land? Ought they to grant approval or can they refuse, and on what ground can they refuse? I realise that if they gave approval and work was carried out within the period of five years, then they would be raising the price against themselves. The existing use value of that piece of land will have been enhanced by the additional value of the work carried out. But that is not a justification for refusing permission. What is their duty?
I am raising these questions not because I have a ready answer to them, but because I think the noble Viscount has rendered a service in putting down an Amendment of this kind, which enables us to thresh out the right way of dealing with this problem. There is a problem. It is inherent in the fact that in most cases the market value of the land will be higher than the existing use value. Incidentally, if I may be a little out of order, I enjoyed very much the noble and learned Viscount's speech on a previous Amendment, but I do not think he was very convincing when he put forward a plea that because there will be some cases where the market value will be less than the existing use value, therefore it is legitimate that in other cases it should be more. It is no comfort to the man who gets less to know that somebody is getting more. He may regard it as amusing, but it would not comfort him in the least.
These are difficulties. I know that the Government are sincerely anxious to afford proper protection to a purchaser, because they realise—they must do—that a purchaser who acquires land without knowledge that it is going to be acquired compulsorily will probably lose money, and a purchaser ought to be put on notice. On the other hand, they have got to be fair to the local authority, and I think they have a duty to make clear to the local authority what their course should be if an application for planning development is made; and also what their course should be if their intention of acquiring land is something less definite than an actual decision of the council, but is, nevertheless, in their minds. This is by way of being a general discussion on the clause, but I think it is relevant on the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, who has tried to crystallise these ideas, I am afraid not altogether with
1002
complete success, but, at any rate, I congratulate him on his attempt.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken for propounding these questions. I shall do my best to answer them all, but if I do not answer any of them I hope that any noble Lord will not hesitate to put them to me again. If my noble friend Lord Gage will allow me, I will begin by dealing with the points raised in his Amendment, because he was good enough to inform your Lordships that he was speaking on behalf of the County Councils' Association, and, if I may say so with respect, anyone who has been three years at the Home Office is greatly indebted to the County Councils' Association for suggestions in a variety of fields. I should like to deal with what they suggest now. There are really two suggestions in the Amendment. The first is to require a register to be maintained by the local authority; and the second, to ensure that notifications from other public authorities are acted upon by the local authority only if, first, the public authority in question have passed a resolution expressing their intention to acquire, and secondly, planning permission has been obtained or is not required for the development the public authority have in mind. May I deal, first, with the question of the register. The objection to that, in our view, is that it would introduce unnecessary formality into the relatively simple work of the local authority under the clause; and it would involve provision of opportunity to the pubic at large to examine it. Until my noble friend spoke, I understood that the associations of local authorities had not hitherto sought to suggest that a register would be desirable. I would ask all noble Lords to consider that point of the introduction of unnecessary formality, which I have put quite briefly.
With regard to the other point, I agree that it would probably be valuable to be able to define, as the Amendment seeks to do, at what stage a proposal to acquire becomes eligible for notification—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had the same difficulty in mind when he spoke. I can assure your Lordships that we have considered the possibility, but it had to be abandoned in view of the difficulty of defining a stage in the proceedings of public authorities who, as your

1003
Lordships are aware, do not conduct their business on a basis of resolutions—I have in mind Government Departments, statutory undertakers and the like. I agree that the point in the Amendment is obviously of importance, and we have it in mind. But I would put this to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with his experience as Minister of Town and Country Planning, as well as to my noble friends who are looking at it from the point of view of their local authority experience: that this is a matter which might well be dealt with more usefully, helpfully and profitably, by a circular, which would explain and would be able to deal with a number of circumstances and give guidance in that way. I am well ware that it is now a longer period than I care to think since I first had to deal with Bills at a Ministerial level, and that anything that suggests that something should be dealt with outside the Bill, instead of in it, is always greeted with a certain amount of suspicion. But I do put this to your Lordships most earnestly for consideration: that this is the sort of field, when the Ministry have considered the matter and considered how best guidance could be given, where a circular might be more helpful.
LORD SILKIN: Perhaps I might make this suggestion, as we are all rather thinking aloud on this question. Would the noble and learned Viscount consider a regulation? That is subject to discussion in either House, whereas a circular is not subject to discussion at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the same happy way of thinking aloud, I shall, of course, be pleased to consider it. I would suggest to the noble Lord, however, that you can get greater detail in a circular—perhaps illustrations, and so on—which it is difficult to put in a regulation. But I will consider the point, and I am sure the noble Lord will consider the suggestion that I have made.
I now want to deal with a point which my noble friend Lord Gage raised about the initiative in this matter. On that, I would reassure him that this is not a question where the local authority are supposed to show initiative. There is no occasion for the local authority to go in search of public authorities who are thinking of acquiring; they merely want to be notified, and that ought to be a
1004
simple and straightforward matter. They are not required to consider the rights or wrongs of what any authority proposing to acquire may do. So far as that is concerned, from every angle, the noble Viscount may be reassured that there is no initiative expected in that way. The second point which the noble Viscount had in mind, and which I think comes in most clearly at this stage in my argument, is that the onus of action to protect a public authority against the working of the clause lies with the public authority themselves. In this regard, what the public authority and the local authority will have to do should really develop quite simply. The public authority have to make up their mind what they want and tell the local authority. There is no question of authorities going round on each inquiry, wondering whether they have to tell or not.
If, as I have envisaged in these words I have been saying to your Lordships, you have a public authority and a local authority, the public authority informs the local authority and then the local authority know whether they should notify or not; so I do not think they are put in any great difficulty on this point. They have to deal with that as a matter of common sense. If they can honestly say to themselves, "We have not been notified by a public authority," then the answer to the inquiry that they get is "No." If they feel that what the public authority has told them does not amount to any notification on their part, then they pass on a negative answer, and then it is, if I may put it colloquially, the funeral of the public authority if it finds that it has to purchase land covered with bricks and mortar, or the preparations for building, instead of the land in its original state. I hope that that deals with some of the points which my noble friend raised.
Now I come to the question which I understood is worrying my noble friend Lord Gage more than any other, and that was the suggestion that planning permission for a public authority's development should be a prerequisite of any action to be taken. I want to make it quite clear that the working of the clause is quite independent of planning permission in this sense, which in the view of the Government does not come into the picture at all. Again, if I am right, I think that was the answer that my noble friend Lord Gage wanted. At any rate, that is the

1005
position, and I believe that to introduce the requirement that the local authority should first grant planning permission would inevitably make for confusion in this matter. It must be borne in mind that planning permission is not, under the Act of 1947, a document of title. It runs with the land and inures for the benefit of anyone for the time being interested in the land. The job of the planning authority, apart from the preparation of plans, is to consider applications regardless of whether the applicant has an interest in the land or is considering acquiring one. If the land is suitable for the development proposed in the application, it is the planning authority's duty to grant permission, notwithstanding that they may know that some other public authority is thinking of buying the land for the purpose of doing something different for which permission might also well be granted. I think that answers the query of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. It is intended to answer it quite forcibly and clearly, and that is the view which we take of this matter.
May I give it in the form of an example? If a private developer wishes to build houses, he is entitled to be granted permission to do so unless there is some planning objection, even if the housing authority is itself known to be thinking of buying the land for the same purpose. It does not follow, from the mere fact that the housing authority is interested, that they will be empowered to proceed. That is the position we wish to see: that the knowledge of the local authority of what a public authority, whether itself or another, is proposing to do should be passed on. But we do not think that it is necessary for planning action to be taken, and we think that it ought to give planning permission unless there is an objection.
It follows from that that if a notification could not be accepted by the local authority until the public authority had assured itself of planning permission, the interests of private people might well be prejudiced and the issue of notices to prospective purchasers would certainly be delayed. I think that follows quite clearly, and I have been glad to note that all your Lordships who have spoken—and I gather that it is the sense of the Committee as a whole—are anxious that the purchaser should be
1006
protected in this way. The only thing which worries your Lordships is the procedure which may be adopted. I believe that the purchaser is entitled to that consideration. I have tried to deal with the difficulties that have been raised, and I make the suggestion that those of your Lordships who are interested might be good enough to look at my speech. I know how difficult it is, apart from my own defects, to pick up the points in a speech on a technical subject as we go along. When your Lordships have had the opportunity of considering it, if there are any points which I have not explained I shall be glad to try and explain them again. Of course, it is always open to your Lordships to act on the next stage. I think we have had an interesting preliminary discussion on this point, and I hope, in view of the other numerous points before the House, your Lordships will be content with this discussion of this part of the Bill.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: The noble and learned Viscount has explained this at length, but could he add just a little more? There is one point which he did not cover. I am looking at it from the point of view of the planning authority. It would seem to me that, without planning permission, which implies that the public authority have had to make their case, there would be a tendency on behalf of many of them to notify a considerable number of sites as alternatives. I do not think the noble and learned Viscount quite covered that point. I think there is a fear that many statutory undertakers, for example, may wish to preserve their position, and, so far as they know, all they have to do is to say, "In five years time we may want to buy this land."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That was the point I covered by the colloquial words, "that is their own funeral." If they like to notify that they may do something in five years, and then the purchaser, who is the beneficiary under this clause, gets his planning permission, the purchaser can carry out his development. Then the local authority will have to buy the land with the additional expense of the development, and so much the worse for them. They have not been able to make up their minds.
LORD SILKIN: Would not the practical effect of a notification of a purchase be that he will not buy? Most people are not likely to buy to establish a claim to get back what they paid for their land; they buy because they want to enjoy the land. If they are told that this land is likely to be acquired at a so-called market price, they will not buy, and then the owner suffers because he has unsaleable land. We do not want to multiply unnecessary notifications. I am sure that in protecting the purchaser we do not want to inflict a hardship on the owner. I do not know whether that is the point the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, had in mind.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord—that is just the point I was coming to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say one word on that matter? Of course, the people with whom we are dealing do not live in watertight compartments, shut off from each other without communication. It is one of the chances that people must take. What we are seeking to do is this. If the purchaser of land, who purchases in order to develop, gets these conditions: first that he knows whether there is the threat, and then, in the conditions laid out in the clause, gets the protection after some time, it is surely no disadvantage to him to receive that notification; it is a very great help to him. If he thinks—and we all know that these things do happen—that it is one of those notifications that hang like a miasma over the land but never descend upon it, then he has his remedy of developing and being compensated if the development takes place. That is the answer to it. But I would come back to this point—and this is really what I ask my noble friend, Lord Ridley, to consider—that surely it is a great advantage that a purchaser should be given that notification, and it would be a very great disadvantage if he had to wait to get that notification till all the steps of obtaining planning permission had been gone through.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I appreciate that. But there is the other case, where there may be no purchaser at all. This clause is intended to protect purchasers, and may, and I suppose will, produce a large number of notifications. They may attach
1008
to land which nobody is thinking of buying or selling, at any rate under the terms of this clause. The result of that may be that some present owner in a year or two's time may want to develop. Will he find his land is in the same position as it would be without the notification? There are two possibilities: either he decides to sell and it has not the same value, or he applies for planning permission. Is it not possible that some planning authorities will say "This land is notified land and we should not give permission." I think a very clear circular from the Minister would be very important. It looks rather as if notified land is going a long way towards being designated land. I think one has to look at the case not only when there is a purchase in contemplation but when there is not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I ask my noble friends to draw a great distinction between notification and designation. In my view they are a number of degrees apart. If one keeps that in mind—because that is the idea behind the clause—I think some of the difficulties will disappear. I hope that my noble friends will now consider that we have had sufficient discussion for the moment. If there are any other questions, I am open to see any of them when they like.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The noble and learned Viscount is always so courteous to us that I feel we have no option but to do what he suggests. I cannot pretend I am happy about this clause. It seems to me, to say the least of it, illogical, and as there is a great deal of money involved in this kind of certificate procedure I feel that some of the best legal brains will be turned on to seeing what they can make of the possibilities of this clause. I feel that if the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, were minded to return to his previous activities, there would be a great prospect in front of him in connection with the Bill generally and this clause in particular. But I quite agree that we must consider the full effect of the noble and learned Viscount's speech. I am grateful to him for saying that he is going to inform local authorities of what is expected of them. I think that is most necessary. In regard to what he said about the difficulties of registration, it did not seem to me that those difficulties were so great, but let us by all means consider that supposed difficulty, and, as

1009
I have another chance of speaking on a later Amendment, I will say nothing more but withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.56 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add at the end of subsection (1):
"specifying in the notice any part of that land to which any such proposal of the council or other authority does not extend".
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment and the other two Amendments in my name, page 42, line 8, and page 42, line 32, go together, and if your Lordships would give me the indulgence of discussing them together I think it would be helpful. They do three things. First, they provide more effectively for cases where the local authority are aware of a proposal to purchase part of the land. As the clause is at present drafted the would-be purchaser would have to make a second inquiry in respect of the part of the land not earmarked, in order to secure the protection of the clause. The second thing they do is to extend the clause to cases where the intending purchaser has not completed the acquisition when notice to treat is served, but is bound to do so under an enforceable contract. That is the effect of Amendment No. 63, and I hope my noble friends will note it, because it has a material effect on the question of time. Your Lordships will appreciate that there might be many cases where there would not be enough time to get completion but there is enough time to get to the stage of an enforceable contract. It is common practice in the building industry to take up the land contracted for only as it is required. The purchaser is at risk in such circumstances, because the vendor would be in a position to compel him to complete. The third thing these Amendments do is to make a number of drafting improvements in the clause. I am not going into the metaphysical point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, as to the difference between a drafting Amendment and a purely drafting Amendment. I should be inclined to say that these are, on the whole, drafting Amendments but not purely drafting Amendments, and leave it to your Lordships to take the difference. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 4, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RATHCREEDAN LORD RATHCREEDAN moved at the end of subsection (1) to insert:
"A notice which states that a council propose to acquire any such interest shall also state the purpose and the estimated date of the acquisition, and a notice which states that a public authority have given notice of a proposal to acquire any such interest shall also state the name of that authority and the purpose and the estimated date of the acquisition.
(2) If a council give no such notice to the applicant within twenty-eight days of the receipt of the application they shall be deemed to have given notice that they do not propose to acquire any such interest within the next five years and have not been notified by any public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers of a proposal of that authority to acquire any, such interest:
Provided that if at the time of receiving such an application as aforesaid a council do not propose to acquire any interest in the land which is the subject of the application and have not been notified by any public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers of a proposal of that authority to acquire any such interest they may give notice to that effect to the applicant without allowing a period of twenty-eight days to expire."
The noble Lord said: I rise with some diffidence to move the Amendment standing in my name, because this is the first time that I have had the temerity to take part in your Lordships' deliberations, and I would not do so this evening only I am one of the few practising solicitors in your Lordships' House and probably the one who, owing to the fact that he seldom attends your Lordships' House, has had the experience of dealing with a great many prospective purchasers. As this clause is designed to protect the prospective purchaser, your Lordships will realise that the prospective purchaser will expect aid and assistance from a solicitor, but I am sure your Lordships will realise that it is becoming increasingly difficult for members of the solicitors' profession to carry out their duties and to satisfy their clients in this respect. This Bill and this clause in particular do not make that task any easier.
The Amendment Which I propose really deals only with three small points. The first is that, in the notice which the council give that they propose to acquire the land, they should also state the purpose for which they wish to acquire the land and the approximate date when the

1011
purchase will be made. It is surely not difficult for the authority to give this information, because they must have given consideration to the reasons for which they wish to acquire the land. It will also prevent the possibility of the bare notification that they may wish to acquire the land. As the noble and learned Viscount on an earlier Amendment to this clause stated, he thought that some of these councils would err on the side of safety and therefore put in a notice that they wished to acquire the land, in order to be on the safe side. I feel that, if they have to put forward the purpose for which they wish to acquire the land and the approximate date, this will ensure a fewer number of notices given just to safeguard themselves.
The second point is that, although it is stated in the clause that the council shall reply within twenty-eight days, the position if the council do not reply within twenty-eight days is not clear. My Amendment suggests that, if they do not reply within twenty-eight days, they shall be deemed to have given notice that they do not wish to acquire the land. The third point is a proviso. Again, it is not clear, when a prospective purchaser applies to the local authority, whether they, the local authority, have to wait for twenty-eight days to see whether there is going to be an application from any public authority or whether they can issue the notice within the twenty-eight days if they have not received any notification. I hope that, if this Amendment cannot be agreed to, at least the noble and learned Viscount will put my mind at rest with regard to these points. It is possible that they are already in some measure covered, but there are doubts on these points and it would be of great assistance if they could be cleared up. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 4, at end insert the said words and subsection.—(Lord Rathcreedan.)
6.3 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It must happen on comparatively few occasions that so junior a Member of your Lordships' House as I am has so great a pleasure as I have in congratulating the noble Lord on the speech that he has just made. If he will allow one who is
1012
old in speech-making, if a junior Member of this House, to say so, I thought that his speech had exactly the mixture of modesty, learning and clarity which most delights the heart of the hearer. I am sure I am speaking for everyone in the House when I say that it is our desire that the noble Lord will often address us again. After the speech, I should like to be able to say that I accept the Amendment and that that is an end of the matter, but, if the noble Lord will allow me, I will take the next best course. I hope he will allow me to consider these points again, in view of what he has said. With regard to the first point, he has made a case, and put it most reasonably, for the information on the subject mentioned in his Amendment. I should like to have another look at that. I started with the view that it was not necessary, but the noble Lord has certainly convinced me that the matter is deserving of further consideration on that point.
With regard to the second point, I thought that the local authority would be subject to the usual machinery affecting someone who disregards a statutory duty laid upon him. Although that is rather a heavy piece of machinery, I thought it was enough. It is rather difficult by Statute to compel the conclusion to be drawn that the noble Lord suggests in his Amendment, because that might introduce further complications which would make the position of the local authority very hard indeed. While I will not at this Box ask for special treatment, either for Government Departments or for local authorities, I think that everyone in this House, and especially noble Lords on both sides who, if I may put it this way, have a local authority background and experience, would agree with me that the successful working of the clause depends on a reasonable outlook and reasonable efficiency being maintained, both by all acquiring authorities and by the local authority as administering authority. I should not like to put in any provision which would imply that one was expecting dilatory conduct or which might be taken in that way. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment for the moment, on my promise to consider the point. And if your Lordships will allow me, I should like again to congratulate him on his speech.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: We on these Benches should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, on his maiden speech. In our view, the Amendment which he has moved is a very important one. As my noble friend knows, though he did not mention it, it has the support of the Law Society, who feel strongly that these are necessary steps to ensure that a solicitor who is making inquiries on behalf of a prospective purchaser should have the necessary information on which to give adequate advice. We hope—I certainly hope—that the noble and learned Viscount will consider the proposals and adopt them. They all seem to me to be practical and, as there is no sanction if a local authority does not give the information required within twenty-eight days, it would seem necessary either to impose a sanction or to do what the Amendment proposes to do, enable the prospective purchaser to deem that there is no purchase in prospect.
LORD SILKIN: I, too, should like to congratulate my noble friend on his maiden speech, and to assure him that we shall often call upon his services now that we know his capabilities. I rise only for one reason—namely, that the noble and learned Viscount seemed to be under the impression that there was something of an innovation in having a provision saying that if a local authority did not reply within a certain period certain inferences were to be drawn. On a number of occasions, in the course of the discussion on the Committee stage, the noble and learned Viscount has referred to the 1932 Act, which I imagine he would regard as having most respectable parentage. I should like to assure him that in that Act there is a similar provision—that where there is an application for planning consent and the local authority do not give a decision within two months, the applicant is entitled to regard that as a permission. That was altered in the 1947 Act to work the other way: that it there is no decision within two months it is to be treated as a refusal. But the principle is just the same: that under both Acts certain action follows from the failure of a local authority to give a decision. Therefore, this would be no innovation. It seems to me that that was the real case which the noble and learned Viscount made against this Amendment.
1014
I hope that he will take these respectable precedents into consideration.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount, not only for his reply but for the very kind things he said about my speech. I value his remarks, coming from such a great speaker and from someone who has had such great experience, very much indeed. I should like to raise one further point. I do not think the noble and learned Viscount gave me any reply to the question as to whether the local authority could reply within 28 days, or whether they have to wait for 28 days to receive any notice from a statutory undertaking.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should have thought they could reply at once, and that if they got any further information within the 28 days it would be common sense, and I think courtesy, to send it on. That is how I should have thought the matter should be dealt with.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for that reply. In view of what he has said, that he will look into the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.14 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved to add to subsection (1):
"On any application under this subsection the applicant shall on request pay to the council to whom the application is made a fee of five shillings."
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment at the request of the Association of Municipal Corporations. The reason why the point is raised is that it seems that a quite considerable amount of work on the part of county borough or the county district councils will be involved in operating this clause. Obviously, it will be necessary for local authorities to keep a register, and it also seems probable that solicitors acting for a purchaser are likely to make an inquiry under this clause every time they submit a local land charges search, as they do of course at present.
Section 15 of the Land Charges Act, 1925, which requires the appropriate officer of the local authority to register certain local charges, makes provision for fees to be paid for any certificate of search in the register and for the

1015
search itself. The local authorities are also entitled to charge for supplying information, apart from that which is required to be recorded in the register. It is true that not all local authorities make a charge, but the power is there. Therefore it seems to the Association of Municipal Corporations—and also, I think I may say, to my noble friends and myself—that since inquiries will become common form under this clause, whenever an application is made for a local land charges search it is not unreasonable for local authorities to charge a reasonable fee. There is provision in Clause 48 for a fee in the case of inquiry from the Central Land Board. That fee is, I think, 5s., and a similar fee is suggested in this Amendment. I think the local authority should have the same advantage under Clause 34 as it is proposed should be given to the Central Land Board in somewhat similar circumstances under Clause 48. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 4, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had anticipated that one of the arguments on this Amendment would be that what is sauce for the Exchequer goose is sauce for the local authority gander. For Lord Milner of Leeds' information, what he has in mind is contained in Clause 48, where the Central Land Board are empowered to charge a fee. But I am told that the two clauses are not at all comparable in the amount of work they will entail, and that the fee charged under Clause 48 will in no way cover the expense of examining records and supplying the necessary information; and it is not meant to do so. It is meant just to cause the applicant to pause for a moment before he asks for unnecessary information. But under Clause 34 any prudent purchaser of land will want information about the possibility of compulsory purchase, and it will cost very little for the local authority to provide it. Presumably, they will have a file of notifications, and they will have only to consult the file and send a reply. I do not wish to delay the Committee, nor to spend time arguing about whether or not there should be a 5s. fee. I am very anxious that no difficulty should be put in the way of the purchaser, but in view of the
1016
fact that Lord Milner of Leeds has said that the Association of Municipal Corporations are behind this Amendment and are anxious to have it, I will willingly have another look at it. I hope he will allow me to do that. I will communicate with him when I have come to a decision.
LORD BURDEN: I am very glad that the noble and learned Viscount has agreed to have another look at this Amendment. I would say that the work under this clause will not be quite so automatic and routine as he has rather implied. I think it will be incumbent upon the local authority to put a responsible officer in charge of the work, to see that inquirers get accurate information; otherwise, if the work is given to a junior to carry out, serious consequences may ensue. We all know that local authorities are today very hard pressed on financial grounds, and even 5s. flowing in regularly from numbers of inquiriers might be of assistance. I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount is to have another look at this point.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Having regard to the suggestion made by the noble and learned Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is one of the Amendments which I explained with a previous Amendment. I hope the Committee will allow me to move it formally now. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 8, leave out from ("propose") to ("is") in line 18 and insert—
("and have not been notified of any proposal of another authority, to acquire within the next five years any interest in any land specified in the notice (in this subsection referred to as 'the specified land'), being the whole or part of the land to which the application related; and
(b) the person to whom the notice was given has within three months of the giving of the notice completed, or entered into a bona fide contract for, the purchase of an interest in the specified land or any part thereof and given notice of the completion or, as the case may be, of the making of the contract to the said council; and
(c) that interest, or that interest in so far as it subsists in any part of that land.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment, agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Amendment No. 67, in my name, is consequential upon the Amendment which I have withdrawn, and is therefore not moved.
LORD HYLTON: This Amendment is purely practical and is considered as improving the period during which this notice must be given. I believe the period of three months is insufficient for the purposes for which it is intended. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has far greater experience than myself in legal matters, has been good enough to add his name to this Amendment. In view of the legal weight that will be attached to his opinion I propose only to move this Amendment and I hope the noble Lord will support it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 14, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD SILKIN: I realise that Her Majesty's Government have here gone some way towards meeting the difficulty by relating this provision to contracts instead of to completed purchases. Nevertheless, since the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has referred to the weight of my experience, I would say that in my experience it is quite common for negotiations resulting in a contract to take more than three months. To insist on a contract being completed in three months is to encourage people to make another application and get a further notification shortly before they are about to complete a contract. It would be much wiser, and would hurt nobody, if the period in the Bill were to be six months as against three months.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had hoped, as I indicated with an appealing glance towards the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on an earlier Amendment, that my introduction of contracts as opposed to completions had met the point. If, in the view of two noble Lords of the experience of Lord Hylton and Lord Silkin, it is not thought to be sufficient, I will have another look at it and see what are the disadvantages. There is no point in arguing the matter. This is essentially practical, and unless I can find practical reasons to advance to your Lordships then of course I shall try to meet you. But I should like to go back and consider this question from the various practical points of view and deal
1018
with it on the Report stage. I will therefore ask my noble friend if he would not press it at this stage.
LORD HYLTON: I am much obliged. I have found great difficulty in certain circumstances in completing contracts within so short a period, and doubtless other noble Lords have found the same difficulty. In view of the assurance of the noble and learned Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the third of the three Amendments which I have explained. Again, with your permission, I will move it formally. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, leave out lines 32 to 44, and insert—
("Provided that—

(i) if at the date of the publication or service of the first notice in connection with the acquisition such as is referred to in paragraph (c) of this subsection, the purchase mentioned in paragraph (b) thereof has not been completed, this subsection shall not have effect unless the contract mentioned in the said paragraph (b) remains in force at that date;

(ii) this subsection shall not have effect in relation to a purchase by a company from an associated company within the meaning of section forty-seven of this Act.

(3) The two last preceding sections shall not apply for the purpose of assessing any compensation to the assessment of which the last preceding subsection applies:
Provided that if the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest would, apart from this proviso, be less than it would have been if this section had not been enacted, the last preceding subsection shall not apply in the case of that acquisition").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to leave out Clause 34. The noble Lord said: I had put down this Amendment to try to discover from Her Majesty's Government why the certificate process provided for in this clause is necessary at all, and why the same protection to the prospective purchaser (which we all agree is most necessary) cannot be provided through the medium of the planning consent itself. We all want to avoid hardship. One of the ways in which we can seek to avoid the inflicting of hardship is by not misleading the public. It is misleading to

1019
issue an official document—as we are doing to-day—telling a man he can build a house when we do not necessarily mean that he can build anything at all. It may mean that next day his land is compulsorily acquired at a very low price for some quite different purpose. The clearance certificate which we have been discusing is only another way of saying that a planning consent has, for at least five years, the meaning it purports to have. Further, as noble Lords have heard in the course of this debate, it has been the practice to attach to consents so issued a number of conditions, many of which, after being in use for many years with the knowledge of the Ministry, are, we are now told, ultra vires and illegal. That again is misleading.
I should at once agree that these fictional aspects of town planning are by no means confined to the actions of local authorities. Applications which we receive from individuals as often as not do not mean what they purport to mean. An applicant may put in an application to build when he really wants a refusal for building, thus establishing a claim for compensation. Under this Bill that is the only way he can get compensation. An applicant may be putting in an application to build not because he desires to build but because he wishes to speculate in land values. So we have the peculiar position that an applicant may ask for permission to build without having any intention of building, and he may receive a consent which does not necessarily mean what it says, and possibly imposes conditions which are entirely illegal. To complete the picture, we are to issue warnings under this clause that land is wanted for a particular purpose, while giving consent to the development of the same land for an entirely different purpose. Is it surprising that the ordinary man-in-the-street should be considerably bewildered by all this mix-up? Is it really impossible to devise a system of control in which words would have more of the meaning usually attached to them in the dictionary? Could we not possibly make a new start by devising a form of consent that is legal and at the same time valid—by that I mean that no Government Department or local authority should be enabled to override it except by paying the full value of that consent?
Would it not be possible to discourage mere speculation in land values by giving these consents quite a short life—say five years in the normal term? Surely if somebody wants to build a house he can normally do so to-day within five years. For large-scale plans a longer period could, of course, be agreed. But I do not see why anyone should expect to get indefinite protection from compulsory acquisition by the simple process of not carrying out their expressed intention, nor can I see why any statutory bodies should be completely outside planning law. After all, if statutory bodies want to safeguard their future interests, why should they not use the designation procedure specially provided in the 1947 Act for this purpose? Lord Silkin said that he was amused because we had opposed this procedure when he introduced his Bill in 1947. I think that in this House a certain amount of apprehension was expressed, just as there has been apprehension expressed about the effects of this clause in possibly sterilising land, but I do not remember that we divided against that suggestion. I was always of opinion that there was a great deal to be said on both sides. If the designation process for some reason does not work, cannot it be made to work?
I make these suggestions with great deference because I know well that it is almost impossible for a layman to make any constructive proposals in this highly complicated subject that will not be shot down—any proposals that will stand up to criticism. But I submit that the situation is serious. I do not believe that the public will discuss this measure in the same calm and dispassionate way that is traditional to this House. I doubt whether they will discuss it at all. But they will discuss—and in a far from dispassionate manner—some of the results of the Bill, which I do not wish to exaggerate. In my own county we have been advised to take the almost unprecedented step of setting up a special committee to consider each case of compulsory acquisition from the angle of hardship. I think this committee will have a difficult task because of the extreme disparity between some of the existing values and the compulsory purchase price. I mentioned one figure during the Second Reading debate. I have now heard of another case in which a sale contract for £30,000 actually exists, but the compulsory purchase price is

1021
£4,700 including claim. I am not defending these inflated values, but I say it is going to be difficult for the local authority to decide what is their best course in that kind of situation. We are told that this double price system is basic to the Bill, and we must accept that. Even so, it seems to me that we should endeavour to the best of our ability to remove all possible causes of misconception from the public mind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 34.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that my noble friend Lord Gage will agree—indeed I think all your Lordships have seen that it is so—that I have tried to deal with all the points on this clause as they arose. Therefore, I hope that Lord Gage will not think it discourteous of me if at this stage I do not go at length into the wider issues which he has raised on this Amendment, which is, in fact, the converse of the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill. There are just two points to which I should like to direct your Lordships' attention, and that for only a moment or two. The first is the broad question that Lord Gage had so much in mind and of which he spoke so feelingly, the complication of legal drafting in this subject matter. I hope that he will believe me, and I hope that I speak for all lawyers in the House, when I say that we do not want it, and we do our utmost to avoid it. But when one has spent many years considering legislation, both legislation in Parliament and the war-time legislation, the very search for security, the very desire to make sure that every possible interest that might be affected is secure against wrongful action, drives one again and again to this intricacy in drafting which alone can bring home that security. I think all your Lordships would agree that there is no field in which it is more necessary to see that these protections exist, and in which it is so difficult to combine protection with clarity of words. I can only say to my noble friend that we shall try hard to achieve the combination of simplicity and exactitude which is the draftsman's dream.
My second point is with regard to the clause itself. I must say that I am reminded of that famous statement of M. de Talleyrand, which he made leaning
1022
on that raised balustrade of the Travellers' Club: "Beware of your first intentions—they are usually good." I cannot help feeling that the lesson of this clause is to beware of the good intention of seeking to help the purchaser who may be caught by the prospective development of the public authority. As I have said, I know that your Lordships will not, after the many times I have addressed you on this clause, think I am being flippant in the matter. I know that the objective of your Lordships is to give the purchaser that protection, and at the same time to find the best method of doing this. I have given my reasons. If there are any improvements that may be suggested, I am prepared to consider them. I hope that my noble friend will now allow us to have the clause and to proceed to the next subject, in which, I know, a great many of your Lordships are interested.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I should like to add one word to what my noble friend Lord Gage has said. I think the arguments he has developed on the complication of the planning situation almost lead back to the argument we had on the 1947 Act: that there should be only one form of consent, whether for the individual, the public authority, the statutory authority, or even for the Government itself. If we had such a thing, and if it were known that there was one certain plan made for whatever piece of land it might be, we should, I think, remove the difficulty about this insurance scheme for the purchaser. In practice, quite apart from the position of the purchaser under this clause, there are great difficulties for planning authorities in having to fit in their decisions on planning with decisions on planning made by other people. There will always be a difficulty so long as there are these two sets of decisions being made concurrently.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I thought I had given the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor notice about this point. I have no wish to delay the proceedings. I feel very strongly about this matter, but we must leave the development of that argument until another time. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [Compensation to include benefit of planning permission in certain other cases]:
On Question, Whether Clause 35 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SILKIN: The Committee may remember that yesterday, on Clause 6 of the Bill, I raised the question of the position of a person who had a dead-ripe certificate under Section 80 of the 1947 Act. It was a technical point. I asked how a person, who by virtue of the certificate did not make a claim and therefore had no established claim, could recover his development value if his land were compulsorily acquired or if he had sold it for less than the market price, and would otherwise have been eligible for payment towards an established claim. I did not imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, would have been able to answer that question there and then, and I said that I would raise it at the earliest opportunity and this is the opportunity. I leave it to the noble Lord.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is quite right. I had some knowledge of this matter at the back of my mind, but when I went to the back of my mind I found it was an even darker and murkier place on this subject than I imagined. I have taken advice on the point and I understand that the effect of the Bill on the dead-ripe certificate will be as follows. To get a dead-ripe certificate the owner must have had valid permission for the development covered by the certificate. The owner is assured of the benefit of this permission in any eventuality. If permission is refused, he will be compensated in full, under Clause 38. If the land is compulsorily acquired, the compensation payable will include the value of the right to carry out development in the certificate—that is in Clause 35, which we are now discussing. No compensation will be payable otherwise, unless in 1947 the land had a higher development value for some development other than that specified in the certificate and a Part V claim was made for the difference. That, I understand, is the position in regard to the dead-ripe certificate. I hope that it satisfies the noble Lord and answers his query.
LORD SILKIN: I will reply as the noble and learned Viscount has so often
1024
replied: may I consider it and come back to it if necessary?
Clause 35 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 35, to insert the following new Clause—
Additional payments in cases where no claim has been established
".—(1) If, in the case of a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies, it is shown to the satisfaction of the appropriate authority that the relevant land or some part thereof does not constitute or form part of the claim area of any established claim, but that a claim or claims in respect of one or more interests in that land, or, as the case may be, in that part thereof, would have been established if made, there shall be issued by or on behalf of the Treasury a certificate specifying—

(a) whether or not, in the opinion of the person signing the certificate, section thirty-two of this Act would have applied to the compulsory acquisition if the claim or claims aforesaid had been established; and

(b) if so, what in that person's opinion would have been the amount of the additional compensation calculated by reference to the unexpended balance of established development value of that land or that part thereof which would have been payable under that section in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest.

(2) Where an amount has been specified as aforesaid and, after taking into account all the circumstances, the appropriate authority is of opinion that it is just and reasonable that a payment should be made in addition to what would be the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest apart from the provisions of this section, there shall be added to that compensation such amount as the appropriate authority may direct, being an amount not exceeding that specified in the certificate aforesaid.
(3) In this section, the expression "the appropriate authority" means—

(a) where the compulsory acquisition of the relevant interest by the acquiring authority requires authorisation by a single other authority, that other authority; or

(b) where the acquiring authority is a government department and the compulsory acquisition does not require the authorisation of any other authority, the acquiring authority; or

(c) in any other case, the Treasury or such other authority as the Treasury may in any case or class of cases direct."

The noble and learned Viscount said: The purpose of the new clause is to implement the undertaking which I gave during the Second Reading debate to enable acquiring authorities to make additional payments for development value which existed in 1947 but which was not the subject of a claim on the

1025
£300 million fund. The clause requires that the appropriate, authority, which, in accordance with subsection (3) will generally be the Minister confirming the compulsory purchase order, shall be satisfied that a claim would have been established, if made. If the appropriate authority is so satisfied, a certificate is to be issued on behalf of the Treasury stating whether Clause 32 of the Bill would have applied and specifying the amount of the unexpended balance which would have been payable. Up to that point, of course, there is a right to have the claim formulated—a point which was in the minds of some noble Lords. Subsection (2) provides for additional payment by the acquiring authority up to the amount specified in the certificate, if the confirming Minister is of opinion that it is just and reasonable that a payment should be made. That raises another point which I know is in the minds of many noble Lords—namely, the discretion which is vested in the Minister. In the Government's view it is necessary that the confirming Minister should have discretion, as the clause provides, on the point whether a payment should be made and of what amount within the maximum.
Noble Lords may have approached the matter by asking whether the Minister ever refuses. May I give an example which I think disposes of that point? If the clause conferred an absolute right to a payment, there would be no means of avoiding payment in cases where it would be plainly inappropriate. One such type of case would be where the landowner himself bought the land at existing use value during the currency of development charge but did not develop. There have been such cases in the courts, where the practice has been discussed. These are cases in which I can see no possible merit in a subsequent claim for the claim, if I may put it in that way. In the event of compulsory acquisition after the coming into operation of the Bill, the proper compensation would be the existing use value, notwithstanding that a claim could have been established if made. If anyone has bought at the existing use value the compensation should be at the existing use value. Another class of case is that of great institutions in a powerful financial position, which had every opportunity of being advised but decided not to make a
1026
claim and then afterwards want to change their minds. I am afraid they ought to take the consequences. I give these two examples of why there should be a discretion, and the first is the greater.
Then I come to the question about the vesting of that discretion in a Minister of the Crown. May I first deal with it from the procedural point of view? To provide for a payment as of right would entail the laying down of precise and elaborate rules to bind the authorities concerned and the Lands Tribunal. Of course, there will be no appeal to the Lands Tribunal, as it is a Ministerial discretion. It would be necessary to construct hypothetical claim holdings with all the apparatus for the determination of real claims and to take into account all the possible occasions for payment provided for in the Bill in connection with real claims. I am not building up hypothetical difficulties: this is what it would be necessary to do if this were established on a basis of legal right. The Bill requires the value of claim holdings to be reduced by payments under Parts I and V and the amount of unexpended balances to be reduced by payments for future planning restrictions and the carrying out of development. The rules for these hypothetical claims, which have not been made, would have to distinguish the acts or events which ought to come into the reckoning and those which ought not.
The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has just made an eloquent appeal to your Lordships to avoid over-complication. If this were put on a basis of right, I cannot imagine a greater jumble of hypothetical legal possibilities having to be constructed in order that all claims should be met. That is one reason but there is a simpler reason. This is a case where the quantification of claims dealt with in subsection (1) is a matter to which the claimant is entitled. After it has been quantified, the Minister has to say whether he is to pay anything and how much he is to pay. That is the sort of point on which the Minister will be and should be subjected to Parliamentary discipline and Parliamentary pressure, if your Lordships like to use that term. The Minister has to decide what is just and reasonable and if he does not do what is just in the opinion of your Lordships, then it is right that your Lordships' House should

1027
call attention to it. It is not a question where the Minister will be pressed on carrying out a legal matter or a judicial matter of fixing the price; he will be pressed on his opinion as to whether it is just and reasonable. I think that that is right and healthy.
Many years ago the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition introduced me to this fascinating subject, as I have already informed your Lordships, by making me Chairman of a Committee of Inquiry into town and country planning. The subject was whether there should be a Minister at all, or whether we should construct one of these Commissions—your Lordships may remember that some years ago it was rather fashionable to consider having Commissions which would take certain subjects out of politics. It was decided that town and country planning could not be kept out of politics because of the interest that people, both inside and out of Parliament, would show in decisions taken, and my noble friend Lord Gage has given us a number of subjects which have aroused that interest. It will undoubtedly arouse interest if the Minister's views on what is just and reasonable do not accord with the views of each House. Therefore, facing it bluntly, facing the fact that he may have pressure put upon him, I feel that this is the healthiest and best way of dealing with it.
I have tried to put the points with complete frankness. The only other matter is the question of retrospection. I said on Second Reading that while we were ready to consider whether any case could be dealt with in the ways which are familiar to your Lordships, we could not accept the principle of retrospection. By that I must stand. I hope that I have dealt adequately with the point, and I am sure that everyone in this Committee will be glad to know that any case like that of Mr. Pilgrim, which has worried your Lordships and worried the country, will be prevented in the future by the machinery of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 35, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
6.53 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: We are all obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for introducing this new clause, and for the way in which he has done it. The Government have had considerable difficulty in dealing with the kind of case which this clause is intended to cover. On the one hand, they have had to stand by the principle, which I think is right, that they could not, as a matter of right, reopen claims which had not been submitted at the proper time, and give everybody the opportunity of making such a claim; on the other, we are dealing with hardship. Once they took the view that they were not prepared to give everybody an automatic right to reopen the question of a claim, then of course, something of this kind had to be done for the purpose of dealing with hardship; and it had to be discretionary. Therefore, for my part, I feel that on the whole the principle of this clause is right, and I believe that most noble Lords will agree that, short of departing altogether from the principle of the Bill, this is the best that could be done.
On the question of machinery, however, I am not so sure that the Government have given the matter sufficient thought. There are two things that have to be established. The first is whether or not the person concerned would have had a claim under Section 32 of the Act—that has to be certified by some person who signs a certificate. We are not told who that person is, and there is no appeal against his decision. The certificate, I presume, would be issued by or on behalf of the Treasury, and I suppose that the person signing the certificate would be a Treasury official. On the face of it, if he declined to sign a certificate, then that would be the end of the matter, because there is no appeal. There is no one whom one can approach, I imagine, because the person is anonymous. If the decision is not favourable, one can write to the Treasury and ask to see the person who would have had to sign the certificate, but one has no right to receive a reply; one just has to accept the ipse dixit of some person working in the Treasury as to whether or not the hardship is removed.
The second thing that has to be established is whether, in the opinion of this person, there would have been an

1029
unexpended balance of established claim if the person concerned had put in a claim. There again, the same objection applies. It could be a debatable question as to whether or not there would have been a claim. As the noble and learned Viscount knows, there are still a considerable number of claims outstanding after a good many years. There is the question whether Section 63 of the 1947 Act (that is, the de minimis provision) applies—whether a person who did not make a claim would come within the provisions of Section 63. All that is to be settled by the opinion of some unknown person in the Treasury, who cannot be approached and cannot be challenged. I should have thought that if you were going to confer upon a person suffering hardship an opportunity of having his case properly considered, and you were going to make him feel that his case was going to be properly considered, he should have an opportunity of arguing the point and of approaching somebody if his claim was turned down.
I hope that the noble and learned Viscount has not said the last word on this matter. I imagine that he has put up this provision as a sort of cock-shy so that we can all have a go at it and put forward objections if we wish to. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount has put it forward in that spirit, and that he will be prepared to look at the clause again to see whether the person who is suffering hardship cannot be given a further right of making representations and of seeing somebody or talking to somebody, on these two points: first, as to whether he comes within Section 32, and secondly, whether he would have had an unexpended balance of established claim if he had done the right thing at the right time.
On the question of discretion, frankly I do not see what more the noble and learned Viscount could do. If this is to be a discretionary claim, then it is put into responsible hands, and it must be for the appropriate authority to decide what is fair and reasonable. That point stands in a different category from the other two. What is fair and reasonable is a matter that one has to decide on the basis of one's own conscience. But the other two matters are questions of fact and questions of law and, possibly, mixed
1030
questions of fact and law. I think it is unsatisfactory to leave those decisions in the hands of an unspecified person without any right of appeal or approach in respect of such a decision. I do not put these points forward in any controversial spirit, but I believe that they are worthy of consideration if we are to meet these cases of hardship in the spirit in which I believe the Government intend to meet them.
EARL FORTESCUE: I think it would be convenient if the Committee were now to adjourn until a quarter past eight.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I ask your Lordships' indulgence for one moment? I have a dinner engagement, like many noble Lords, and I was not committed to constant attendance on this Bill because it is not a subject with which I am deeply conversant. But there is one small point which I should like to make on this new clause, and I should be greatly obliged if the Committee would allow me to do so in less than five minutes. The intention of this new clause is one with which we shall all agree—to prevent cases of real hardship, such as the Pilgrim case, from arising again. But I venture to doubt whether the clause, as it stands, will carry out this intention. There are, to my mind, two classes of case which will not be altered, and I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he would be kind enough to address his mind to these two classes of case. In the first place, this new clause will not apply in cases where a local authority have already acquired land under compulsory powers or, indeed, may acquire land before this present Bill has passed into law: it is not retrospective. I know that the noble and learned Viscount says that it cannot be retrospective, but perhaps on this stage of the Bill he would amplify his reasons in a way in which he was unable to do during the Second Reading debate.
The other class of case is this. This clause will not apply in cases where local authorities acquire land or have acquired land by agreement with the consent of the owner. It seems to me that if the object of the clause is to prevent injustice to an individual land owner, then it is quite irrelevant whether the injustice arises out of a past purchase or a future purchase, and out of purchase by consent or

1031
purchase by compulsory powers. This injustice will not be put right unless cases of this kind are covered by a clause in the Bill. I should be much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount if he would address his mind to those two points, and I should like to thank the Committee for their indulgence in allowing me to put this matter forward.
(The Sitting was suspended at four minutes past seven o'clock and resumed at a quarter past eight.)
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, in subsection (2) of the new clause, to leave out all words from "aforesaid" down to and including "section." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment to the Amendment. Perhaps with the permission of the Committee I may be allowed to deal with Amendment No. 73 at the same time; I think that might be convenient. Your Lordships on all sides of the Committee will be grateful to the Government for adding this new clause. There is, I think, no shadow of doubt that the public conscience was shocked that a situation could arise under which great loss could occur to an individual owing to the application of a compulsory purchase order on his property if he was not a claim-holder. I do not propose at this late hour to explain again how it came about that, in the Lord Chancellor's words, a good number of claims for loss of development value were not made by the appointed date; nor why it is that at the present time local authorities find themselves in a position where, in the public interest, they feel they ought to acquire such "no claim" land or property because such land or property has no claim. Thereby, of course, the public interest suffers, because the authorities are not able, or are unwilling, to purchase land or property which may in many cases be best suited for the exercise or the purposes of their statutory duties. These points were fully gone into during the Second Reading debate.
I think it appropriate to try to view the Government's new clause against the background of what has been said many times in your Lordships' House during the last ten years, at the very least, and to try and paraphrase the sentiments expressed in this House. They were these:
1032
that the powers of Ministers have been increased; that the individual has very little safeguard against such increases, and that in many cases hardship does arise. That was particularly noticeable in Lord Teviot's Motion in this House last week on the question of compulsorily acquired and requisitioned land. Your Lordships will recollect that the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, gave a quotation from an address delivered by, I think, Professor Hamson, of Cambridge University. I will not refer to that any further, because it will be in the minds of many of your Lordships, but I would draw attention to what the noble Marquess the Leader of the House said, particularly regarding the safeguards to the public included in the provisions regarding the designation of land procedure. I believe that those remarks were relevant to the question that is now before the House.
The noble Marquess made a considerable point in the following words—I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 189 (No. 109), col. 774:
"A most elaborate process of inquiry"—
that is, into the designation proposed—
"has to take place, most of which consists of safeguards"—
I should like your Lordships to observe that word "safeguards"—
"which were inserted by Parliament in the interests of the owner or owners of the land."
Finally, he went on to say:
"All those safeguards were approved by Parliament, not in the interests of the State but, I would repeat, in the interests of the owners and others in the area."
That was referring, no doubt, to a designation area. Those words, falling from the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, of course, influenced your Lordships on that occasion, and it is against that background that your Lordships would wish to examine the Government's new clause.
Your Lordships would expect to find some safeguards for the individual under the new clause after Clause 35—some safeguards for the individual, under two heads: first under subsection (1), (a) and (b). Those two paragraphs deal with, first, the establishment of a claim under Section 32 of the Act and, secondly, what in the opinion of the person signing the certificate would have been the amount of the additional compensation calculated, and so on. Under those two paragraphs

1033
there is no safeguard at all to an individual trying to establish a claim. The Government valuer makes a valuation (this point was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in replying to the noble and learned Viscount), but there is no safeguard after the Government valuer has made his valuation because there is no machinery whereby the owner can have consultations or argue about the correctness of the valuation; nor can he appeal against this valuation when it is made. In all other claims for loss of development value under the 1947 Act there was an appeal to the Lands Tribunal. It was a right of appeal; nobody could prevent any person, trying to substantiate a claim and who failed to agree with the Government valuer, from making such an appeal; he had a right to it. Under this clause, he is denied that right. It no longer exists. I would ask your Lordships whether you think that is a provision that should remain in this clause or whether it should be the subject of an Amendment.
Secondly, when the loss has been calculated, perhaps to the satisfaction only of the Government valuer, there is no safeguard that the owner will receive the sum. All that subsection (2) does is to say that "the appropriate authority," which appears to be the Minister in all cases, after taking into account all the circumstances and being of the opinion that it is just and reasonable, can authorise the payment of any amount which is not in excess of the amount of the certificate. It is quite clear that there is no real safeguard here, and it is not easy to see that the owner, under certain conditions, will receive the amount certified. When introducing this new clause the noble and learned Viscount said that there were two exceptions. I am sure he will forgive me if I quote him inaccurately, because it was somewhat difficult to follow the whole gist of his argument. One was, when an owner had bought land at existing use value, and then a compulsory acquisition order was served upon him, he would have no right to any loss of development value. I think that may be an arguable proposition. On the other hand, he may have bought this land and a development value may arise, and on compulsory acquisition he would get only the original price that he paid for the land, although a considerable number of years may have elapsed. The other point—I am not quite
1034
clear on this; I hope the noble and learned Viscount will put me right when he replies—was when no claim had been made by some body or owner who might reasonably have been thought to have made a claim, or should have made a claim. That I find difficult to understand, because there may be many reasons. I do not see how a Minister can differentiate between different classes of persons on this sort of matter. There will be borderline cases—cases where there may be an element of ignorance, an element of wilfulness. I ask tile Committee this question: how is a Minister to judge fairly in such a case? How can he determine the motives that lay behind the fact that no claim has been made? The motives may be mixed. I would suggest that any Minister who found himself asked to judge in this sort of matter would be put in a most distasteful position. I think those were the main exceptions which the noble and learned Viscount outlined just before we adjourned.
Now I should like to examine a little further what the Minister has to do. He receives this certificate from an individual called "the person signing the certificate" for a certain sum of money. He is bound not to pay more than the face value of the certificate. I suggest that it will be impossible for him to pay less, unless you take into consideration the two exceptions that the noble and learned Viscount mentioned. I believe that, with those two exceptions, if they are valid (I am not quite sure that they are) he will be bound to pay the amount in the certificate, and I would remind noble Lords that the amount in the certificate is simply a valuation of what one man—one Government valuer—thinks. Many noble Lords will have had experience of dealing, arguing and conferring with Government valuers on this matter; I doubt whether any noble Lords have ever accepted a valuation at the first instance. There are innumerable factors to be considered and everybody knows that a district valuer's first valuation is seldom the one finally adopted. I say that with some personal experience of such dealings. In 99 cases out of 100, after the most lengthy dealings some other figure, perhaps more, perhaps less, is finally agreed upon; but it is hardly ever the first attempt of the district or Government valuer at establishing this loss of development value.
I would ask noble Lords to consider who will be the authorising or appropriate authority. I believe that "authorising authority" cannot include fewer than ten separate Ministers, at the very least. There would be the Minister of Education dealing with educational matters; the Minister of Housing and Local Government dealing with matters coming within his province; the Minister of Health for local health authorities; the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries for smallholdings; the Minister of Fuel and Power for electricity boards and the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation for the British Transport Commission. Then we have the three Service Ministers and the Home Office, I understand, in dealing with police authorities. Then, jointly, there are the Ministers of Health and Agriculture for matters dealing with river boards. That is a formidable list of authorising authorities. How and by what means do Her Majesty's Government expect these widely scattered Ministers, with their widely differing powers and duties, to produce a co-ordinated system that will, in each case, be related to the actions of the other Ministers? I see no possibility of that being done. We are frequently told that each Minister is a power in his own house and that no other person is allowed to interfere with him in departmental affairs. I cannot conceive how these multitudinous Ministers are to formulate common policy and common practice in dealing with these cases of hardship.
I turn now to the purpose of my Amendment and I apologise for detaining your Lordships for so long. Taking the two Amendments together, they seek to do two quite simple things. They seek to ensure that when the Government valuer certifies that an individual has lost a specified sum he shall be entitled to receive what he has lost—nothing more and nothing less. It may be necessary that the sum certified should be confirmed by the appropriate authority, and I think your Lordships would see no objection to that. These Amendments are supported by the Association of County Councils. I can only say they have gone most carefully into this matter with a body of those who have to deal with these problems every day of the week. This consists of a panel of clerks of county councils, county planning officers,
1036
county treasurers and county valuers. They constitute an exceedingly practical, well-informed body. Finally, I would say that we would earnestly ask the Government to look into this Amendment or consider an Amendment on similar lines, because there has been a great shortage of time in producing reasoned Amendments to Government clauses, or new clauses which have been issued only a few days ago. If there are drafting mistakes or mistakes of substance in the Amendments, I hope I shall be excused, owing to the shortage of time, for not producing more satisfactory Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 19, of the new clause, leave out from ("aforesaid") to ("there") in line 24.—(Lord Hylton.)
8.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I might, I would first of all deal with the two points which are included in Lord Hylton's Amendments—because he was good enough to make it clear that he was discussing two of his Amendments at the same time. The first point is really directed against the discretion to pay less than the sum found. I did give two examples. I do not want to repeat what I said earlier, but the first of those examples, I submit to your Lordships—that of the transfer of land at existing use value—is a justification for the existence of the discretion. In these circumstances, land has been bought at existing use value and is being compulsorily acquired at existing use value, and no amount of going through other cases will get away from the existence of that case. And if there were nothing else which could be in the imagination of your Lordships as to other possible cases, that would justify the maintenance of the discretion.
The second point I would ask my noble friend Lord Hylton to consider again. I realise that this requires time and that he has not had sufficient time, as he says, to consider in detail the argument that I put forward with regard to rigidity. The noble Lord has himself been one of the most eloquent exponents to your Lordships of the dangers of making an over-complicated structure which defeats itself by its very complexity. I have considered this aspect, and those who

1037
have more experience in the subject-matter, if, perhaps, not more experience in the art or occupation of putting forward and pressing the claims, have come to the same conclusion as t do: that the hypothetical structure, which must be one of a great variety of hypotheses, is something which might well drive off the claimant by the very complexity with which he is confronted. I do not put that forward as a debating point but as a point of great seriousness, and I would ask my noble friend to consider it in the light of the words which he himself has used on this point.
I see that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is here and I think it may be convenient if I deal with the points that he raised, so far as I can at the moment. If he feels that they need any further adumbration, I feel sure he will let me know and I will do my best on a further stage of the Bill. The first point which the noble Earl made was that the clause does not deal with cases of compulsory acquisition which are current, which (to put it colloquially) are in the pipeline, and in which notice to treat is served before the Bill comes into operation. As the noble Earl has mentioned, I said during the debate on Second Reading that it would not be possible to make the provisions of the clause retrospective, and that for the purpose of the clause the starting point must necessarily be the coming into operation of the Bill. The reasons are, first, that it would be quite wrong to impose on the acquiring authority retrospectively an obligation to pay in certain cases sums which they did not know they would have to pay at the date on which they bound themselves to acquire at the price laid down by the law as it then stood—that is, the date of the notice to treat. Such provision would be most difficult to defend against an acquiring authority aggrieved at being required to pay a totally unexpected supplement, and, in my view, would establish a most unfortunate precedent.
Secondly, it would be most unfair that persons who have agreed the terms of sale to a public authority, who acquire their land under compulsory powers, but have not completed the conveyance, should be unable to benefit. Such people entered into a contract knowing that, if they stood out against the authority, their
1038
compensation would be on the statutory basis of existing use value, as laid down by the Act of 1947. Of course, their contracts are binding and enforceable, and to all intents and purposes they are in the same position as one on whom a notice to treat is served to-day. But if we sought to legislate now to improve the position even of those on whom notice to treat is served—that is, possibly, the awkward man who persisted in argument—we should be doing an injustice to the man who did not wish to argue but agreed with the authority about the price he ought to be paid. We should be unable to help the latter type of man, because one cannot go about tearing up contracts fairly entered into and containing, in many cases, terms which have nothing to do with price—agreements about fencing and access and so on.
I do not think the noble Earl's second point is a matter of difficulty. His suggestion was that acquisition by agreement in future was not covered. It has never been customary to lay down by Statute what should be paid by a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers when they buy by agreement. All concerned know that in the last resort the powers can and will be used, and terms are agreed on the basis of what the compensation would be if the powers were exercised. Neither the 1947 Act nor Part III of the Bill legislate for agreement cases, but there is no doubt that trans actions will continue to take place by agreement in the light of the compulsory purchase provisions which the Bill does contain or, as proposed to be amended, will contain.
It may be thought that the fact that the supplementary payment for which the clause provides is at the discretion of the appropriate authority may make the clause difficult to operate, but I am advised that there is no difficulty. Those concerned in settling the price will be able to find out very readily from the appropriate authority whether a payment would be made under the clause if there were compulsory proceedings, and to take it into account in the negotiations. It must be noticed that on the side of the acquiring authority negotiations will usually be in the hands of the district valuer, and he will have a large part in the working of the system which the clause provides. The noble Earl will

1039
excuse me for this rather difficult explanation, but I have put it in as succinct a form as I can. I thought it would be useful to him to have it in the OFFICIAL REPORT and be able to consider it, and I shall be ready to meet the noble Earl if there are any points on which he is still not satisfied.
The other point on which I should like to say a word or two is that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—namely, the position of the signatory on behalf of the Treasury. I do not see that the two parts of subsection (1) are so divorced as the noble Lords seem to fear. I agree that the signatory on behalf of the Treasury has to form his opinion—the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, drew our, attention to that fact—but the appropriate authority is a Minister of the Crown. He has to be satisfied under the first part of Clause 1 that the land does not constitute or form part of the claim area, and also that a claim or claims in respect of one or more interests in the land would have been established if made. After that it becomes a matter of machinery for the Treasury representative to do the calculation. I will, of course, look into the point, but I should have thought from these facts—first, that the appropriate authority has to consider the prerequisites, and secondly, as noble Lords suggested, that the person generally involved would be the district valuer, who, as I have just said in answer to the point made by the noble Earl, is a person who is in constant negotiation on the point—that there would be no difficulty of access or any arm's length handling of the matter. I will look into the suggestions made on this point, because I want the clause to be as effective as possible.
I hope I have shown my real desire to meet your Lordships on all points on which I can possibly help, but it would not be fair or right to say that I can see any possibility of departing from the discretion point, both as to the question of excluded cases and as to the question of procedure. I have tried to impress upon the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, how seriously I feel about the difficulty of complicating the procedure, and I feel that the discretion has to remain. But, apart from that, I am willing to consider any improvements in the machinery which are suggested. I hope, with
1040
that, that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will not press his Amendments to-day but that, having had more time to consider it, he will attune his mind to the problem before Report. If there are improvements, as I say, any suggestion of his or the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, or anyone else in your Lordships' House will receive the most careful attention from me.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: The noble and learned Viscount has satisfied us a good way on the point of Ministerial discretion. His reference to procedure is one which carries great weight. He quoted two cases in which he would feel that the appropriate authority—that is to say, the Minister—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will my noble friend allow me to interrupt? I apologise to your Lordships, because I meant to mention this in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The second case—another quality which I said was necessary—was that of an owner in such a position that there would be no doubt that he had had full opportunity of considering the making of a claim. I was really thinking of a large corporation or society of some kind. I wanted to make that clear. I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, was speaking to Lord Hylton's Amendment to the Amendment. I think we must clear that out of the way first before we go back to Amendment No. 71.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I was meaning to speak on Amendment No. 72, which does concern the Minister's discretion. I should like to make one point there. The noble and learned Viscount said that any large institution or body which could have made a claim and did not would, in his view, be excluded. Could there not be cases in which either large institutions, fairly well off people or owners of any kind, thought, in the circumstances which then existed, that it would be better for them not to make a claim? Is it right that they should in fact be excluded? It shows the difficulty of leaving it to Ministerial discretion without laying down in regulations your terms of guidance. For example, an owner might have said to himself that he did not want to make a claim on account of a piece of land

1041
near his garden or his house because he hoped that it would not be developed. He hoped that it would remain in agricultural use or open space, and thought that if he made a claim there might be more tendency for it to be built upon. He was fully conversant with the law, had good professional advice, and so on. The time may come when the land is acquired from him compulsorily. I ask, is it or is it not right that he should be allowed to go back and make a claim? I would have thought he should, but I cannot really question the clause on that particular point because it does not say what the Minister should or should not do. I think it simply emphasises the difficulty which comes from giving the Minister the discretion. If, in fact, the only certain case which should be an exception is that of the person who has bought the land without a claim on it since the claims were agreed in 1947, would it not be possible to specify fairly easily that that kind of person should be an exception?
Then there is a further point upon which the noble and learned Viscount could help us. As I understood him, his answer to the questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was that you could not go back and expect an acquiring authority to pay the difference between present use and the claim value. But is that not very similar to the payments which will be made under paragraph (b) of subsection (1)? I should have thought the procedure there could have been almost identical. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Viscount will try to improve this part of the clause, because it is with this part of the clause that the Amendment is concerned, so as to define more clearly the Ministerial responsibility in deciding whether or not a claim should be paid. Perhaps he could also tell us the reason why the Minister, having decided that a claim should be paid, still has discretion to pay less than the amount certified. I do not think he covered that point. He quoted cases where he thought it would be wrong to make any payment at all, and no doubt one must agree that in some cases it would be. But so far as I can see, he did not say anything about cases where it would be appropriate to pay less than the amount referred to in subsection (1) (b).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not wish to detain the House—I am afraid that I am taking a great deal of your Lordships' time to-day. I, think my noble friend really answered that point himself, when he said that he was unable to predicate an answer because it was a matter of discretion on the part of the Minister. I always try to avoid being legalistic in dealing with a general matter, as lawyers are so apt to be. I think all my profession in this House would say that one of the basic principles of English law is that, when a discretion is given, that is a free discretion, and that in general one tries not to interfere or to put in a straitjacket a discretion of that kind. Although, in the examples I have given, I frankly admit that to my mind it would be difficult to find a halfway house, I do not for one moment claim that my mind is the fount of all knowledge and wisdom, and I consider that it is a healthy thing to give the Minister the right to say, "In this case I think that a reasonable person would have put in a claim" or, in the other case I gave, "I think that although there has been a sale at existing use value there are certain circumstances which can be met by a portion of the claim." In other words, it is to protect the full discretion, and to allow the Minister to do justice as he sees it, that we have left the matter in that way. I do not think I can help my noble friend further on this point, but I think it is a sound one.
LORD SILKIN: Might there not be cases where a person paid a little more than the existing value but not the market value, and would that not be a case where discretion might be properly exercised? I gather that the noble and learned Viscount is going to look at this question of the person who signs the certificate. I am a little worried about the fact, that there should be no opportunity on the part of the person aggrieved to question, and that it should not appear in the Bill itself that he has that right. I know that he can always approach people, but it is very unsatisfactory if it is not made quite clear that he has a right to approach the person who decides that he has no case. I should like the noble and learned Viscount to look at that point again.
LORD HYLTON: I should like to reply briefly to what the noble and

1043
learned Viscount has said. I should have thought, on the Lord Chancellor's main point, that land bought for existing use value and not developed should not receive any consideration in this matter. That point could be met by a proviso saying that the amount of compensation to be paid in these cases should not exceed the existing use value or the price originally paid by the owner, whichever was the greater. I throw out that suggestion and I hope the Lord Chancellor will look at it in the course of the next few days.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Ridley for what he said on this matter. His experience is great. I am still unable to see why the amount to be awarded by the Minister should be less than that on the certificate signed on behalf of the Treasury. I heard, and no doubt your Lordships heard, what the Lord Chancellor said on this point, but it would appear to me, speaking as a layman, that, if a certificate from a Treasury official is handed to a Minister, there could be no reason why that certificate should not be honoured. I submit that that is a valid point. We have discussed this matter for some little time, and I should like merely to add this: that both the Government's new clause and my Amendment to it have been down only for a matter of two or three days. That being so, I believe that it would be beneficial if they could both be examined at greater length before the next stage of this Bill. On that basis, I am perfectly prepared to withdraw my Amendment No. 72 and not to move No. 73.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.3 p.m.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, after subsection (2) of the new clause to insert:
"(3) The Minister shall make regulations governing the procedure to be adopted by the appropriate authority before arriving at a decision—

(a) that it is just and reasonable that a payment should be made in accordance with subsection (2) of this section; and

(b) as to the amount to be paid where such amount is less than the amount specifield in the certificate referred to in subsection (1) of this section."

The noble Lord said: We have gone into this matter lightly in my previous
1044
remarks, but I have suggested to your Lordships the great difficulty that will exist if over ten Government Departments, each acting under its own powers and acting on its own views of this matter, act independently. Although the Minister may not be able to produce a satisfactory set of regulations, I believe that some form of practice notes, or a code of procedure, should be issued to give confidence to the public that all these Ministers and Government Departments are acting on the same lines. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 27 of the new clause, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hylton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have indicated to your Lordships my own fears as to laying down a procedure which may be rigid and complicated. My noble friend Lord Hylton has approached this from a slightly different slant by suggesting a procedure for co-ordinating the action of all Ministers. I still think that it would be unfortunate to lay down regulations which would rigidify the procedure, but again I will promise my noble friend to look into the point. I hope that at this stage he will be content with that offer.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Although I quite agree with what the noble and learned Viscount has said, is it intended to make any public pronouncement or issue any circular about how these claims are to be made? Is the claimant going to throw himself on the clemency of the Minister in a sort of medieval manner? I ask this question because I do not believe that local authorities are going to be too content with being put into a position of the villain of the piece when they make a compulsory purchase order which is going to create a great deal of resentment, and the Minister comes in like a kind of fairy godmother to put everything right. I think we should be greatly helped (it would avoid a rigid procedure being laid down) if we had some indication of the basis on which Ministers are going to act—whether they are going to proceed on the basis of a means test or some other test, whether a rich man gets certain treatment and a poor man gets other treatment. All this is in the dark, and although I quite agree that rigidity should be avoided I think it would be a good thing if some information were produced for the benefit both of the public and of local authorities.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly consider that point. I do not think it would be to the advantage of anyone if I were, "off the reel," Ito give my views as to how the action should take place; but I will consider the point, and I hope I shall be able to make a statement on it at a later stage of the Bill.
LORD HYLTON: I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for what he has just said. Far be it from me to wish to have absolute rigidity, but there is some lesser degree of a uniform practice, and when there is this great number of Ministers all dealing with the same subject, to my mind it seems not only desirable but essential in the public interest that there should be some guidance. However, I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Compensation for severance, injurious affection and disturbance]:
9.8 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: We now come to a whole series of Amendments which are either drafting Amendments, consequential Amendments, or Amendments containing no point of controversy. I think it might be for the convenience of your Lordships at this hour if I were to indicate which clause contains Amendments of a drafting or non-controversial nature only, and then perhaps, if your Lordships agree to that, the Lord Chairman might put them in a simplified form to the Committee. If that is agreeable to the Committee, perhaps I might indicate that both Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 to Clause 36 are solely drafting Amendments. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 43, line 21, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 25 and insert—
("(1) In connection with a compulsory acquisition to which this Part of this Act applies—
(a) any compensation in respect of an interest in land")
Page 43, line 31, leave out from ("disturbance") to ("shall") in line 32.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Effect of Part III on unexpended balance of established development value]:
LORD MANCROFT: Here, again, all the Amendments, Nos. 77 to 82 inclusive, are either drafting or consequential Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 46, line 13, leave out from ("land") to ("had") and insert ("in which the interest acquired or sold subsisted")
Page 46, line 19, leave out from ("and") to ("for") in line 25 and insert ("unless immediately after the acquisition or sale there is outstanding some interest (other than an excepted interest) in that land to which some person other than the acquiring authority is entitled.")
Page 46, line 29, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 38 and insert—
("(ii) if immediately after the acquisition or sale there is outstanding any such interest as aforesaid, then for the purposes of any other Part of this Act there shall be deducted from the said original balance an amount equal to any part of the relevant balance which is not, or which in the appropriate circumstances would not have been, attributable for the purposes of the said section thirty-two to any such outstanding interest")
Page 46, line 43, leave out ("that other person's") and insert ("any such outstanding")
Page 47, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("or") and insert ("relevant land")
Page 47, line 11, leave out ("to which the sale related") and insert ("in which the interest sold subsisted").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Amendment of s. 22 of principal Act]:
LORD MANCROFT: Both these Amendments are either drafting or consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 48, line 15, leave out ("this Part of")
Page 48, line 19, after ("and") insert ("in this Part of this Act").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Registration and apportionment of compensation for depreciation]:
LORD MANCROFT: This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 8, leave out ("Subsections (2) and (3)") and insert ("Subsection (2)").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Exchequer contribution towards compensation in certain cases]:
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that the amount of any such contribution shall not exceed—

(a) the amount of the compensation for depreciation paid by the local planning authority; or

(b) the unexpended balance of established development value at the date of the making of the order of the land in respect of which that compensation was paid."

The noble Lord said: Having achieved the almost record number of ten Amendments in under a minute—which is not less than the standard achieved in the Mines and Quarries Bill last week—I must now halt our breakneck speed and ask noble Lords to spend a moment on this Amendment, because it is rather more than drafting. Subsection (1) of Clause 40 provides for the making of contributions by the Minister towards the compensation for depreciation paid by a local planning authority in consequence of their having revoked or modified a planning permission. The amount of contribution is to be the compensation which would have been payable under Part II or Part V of the Bill if the permission had been refused in the first instance, or granted as subsequently modified. This may go wrong if there has been a marked fall in values between the date of the original decision and the date of the revocation or modification, or there has intervened some payment of compensation or development of the land which has reduced the amount of the unexpended balance. The result might be, on the one hand, that the Minister's contribution would be more than the amount the authority had paid out or, on the other, that the amount of the unexpended balance would be exceeded. This Amendment is designed to provide against both these possibilities. It is a desirable Amendment and I think noble Lords will agree that it is uncontroversial. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 47, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD SILKIN: Are these provisions (a) and (b) to stand as alternatives? Is it to be whichever is the less or the greater?
LORD MANCROFT: They are alternative.
LORD SILKIN: In the option of the Minister?
LORD MANCROFT: I do not see why an option should arise.
LORD SILKIN: Are there, then, two separate contingencies which may arise?
LORD MANCROFT: Yes.
LORD SILKIN: I will have another look at it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 [Recovery on subsequent development, of compensation under s. 22 of principal Act]:
LORD MANCROFT: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 25 after ("Act") insert ("except subsection (9) thereof").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agred to.
Clause 42 [Scope of Part V]:
LORD MANCROFT: The words we propose to leave out here might have the result of making compensation payable in respect of land which was not the subject of a claim on the £300 million fund, if it happened to be held in the same ownership as other land affected by the same decision which was the subject of a claim. That was not, of course, intended, and would be quite contrary to the basic principle of the Bill. This Amendment is intended to set that matter right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 30, leave out from ("holding") to ("and") in line 31.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment has two purposes. The first, which is only a matter of drafting, is to make it somewhat clearer than the present wording does that the only land which can be described as "qualified land" is the land to which the relevant holding relates. The second purpose of the Amendment, the new subsection (3), is to make the new Clause 16 (3) apply to compensation in respect of planning decisions made before the Bill comes into operation in the

1049
same way as it applies in respect of decisions made after that date. The purpose of that subsection, stated briefly, was to make it possible to pay compensation in cases where buildings or works were constructed to meet the requirements of a local planning authority, although they were not formally required by condition. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 38, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 41 and insert ("in relation to a claim for compensation in respect of any such claim holding so subsisting as aforesaid, any such land is referred to as "qualified land" and the claim holding is referred to as "the relevant holding."
(3) Subsection (3) of section sixteen of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this Part of this Act as it has effect for the purposes of Part II of this Act, with the substitution for the reference to a planning decision made after the commencement of this Act of a reference to a planning decision made before the commencement of this Act.").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Right to compensation in respect of past planning decisions, or past revocations, etc., of planning permission]:
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 4, after ("if") insert ("(i)").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words from the first word "land" down to "interest." where that word occurs a second time, and to insert:
"or

(ii) having been entitled to an interest in any qualified land at the date of the decision or order, he sold that interest (otherwise than to a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers) in pursuance of a contract made after that date and during the period beginning with the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and ending immediately before the commencement of this Act,

and the value of that interest or of another interest which has merged therein or, in the case of an interest extending to other land, the value of that or of that other".
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment and of the consequential Amendments which follow is to provide for cases where land which was the
1050
subject of a planning restriction was sold between November 18, 1952, and the coming into operation of the Bill, and the claim on the £300 million fund was retained by the vendor. The planning restriction may be a refusal or conditional grant of planning permission or an order revoking or modifying a permission previously granted. As the Bill stands, no payment could be claimed by the holder of the claim holding in these circumstances, either under this Part of the Bill or under Part I, although he may have realised in the sale only a fraction of the unrestricted value of the land. The effect of the Amendment is that in these circumstances the vendor will be able to claim compensation for any depreciation caused by the planning decision in the same way as if he had not parted with the land. The consequential Amendments make certain necessary adjustments in the ordinary procedure for determining the amount of the compensation payable. It would obviously be unfair to the vendor if his compensation could be affected by any grant of planning permission, or undertaking to grant permission, made after the terms of sale were fixed. I think that your Lordships will agree that this rectifies a possible injustice, and I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 5, leave out from ("land") to ("interest") in line 7 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is to deal with cases where a mortgagee of land has taken an assignment of the relevant Part VI claim as part of his security. As the Bill stands, neither the mortgagor nor the mortgagee would in such circumstances be able to claim under Part V of the Bill. The proposed subsection which I am now discussing is on similar lines to Clause 10; the mortgagee is to be entitled to whatever the mortgagor could have claimed had be remained the holder of the claim holding. Where the mortgagor retained the claim holding, the position of the mortgagee will be safeguarded by the regulations to be made under Clause 65. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 21, at end insert—
("(2) A person who is entitled to the relevant holding as mortgagee shall be entitled to such compensation as aforesaid, notwithstanding

1051
that he does not satisfy the conditions set out in paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the preceding subsection, if the mortgagor would have been entitled to such compensation if he had continued to be the holder of the relevant holding.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved in subsection (2) to leave out "or order." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and Amendment No. 96 lay down a new basis for measuring the depreciation caused by an order revoking or modifying a planning permission. As subsection (3) is drafted, it requires this to be assessed in the same way as the depreciation caused by a planning decision; but the method laid down for this purpose, in Clause 28 which involves assumptions as to a decision to the contrary effect, does not seem to be quite appropriate. In the case of a revocation or modification order, depreciation can be measured without difficulty by the ordinary "before and after" method, with which some of us are familiar. The proposed subsection (4) sets out certain matters to which regard has to be had in assessing the compensation. Paragraph (a) is to ensure that any compensation already paid under Section 22 of the 1947 Act in respect of expenditure on works rendered abortive by the order, or similar loss, can be taken into account. Paragraphs (b) and (c) contain provisions similar to paragraphs (b) and (c) of the present subsection (2). I appreciate that it is difficult for the noble Lord opposite to follow this, but I think that when he looks at it at leisure he will find that it works out correctly. Regard is to be had to any planning permission granted or undertaking given after the date of the order and liability to development charge is to be ignored. I apologise, because this is a technical point, but I think that what we are doing here is obviously desirable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 24, leave out ("or order").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 45. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 29, after ("provisions") insert (", other than in subsection (3) of the said section twenty-three,").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 91. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 35, at end insert ("and in the application of the said subsection (1) in a case to which paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) of this section applies, no account shall be taken of any grant of, or undertaking to grant, planning permission made or given after the making of the contract of sale.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential on No. 93. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 41, at end insert—
("Provided that, in a case to which paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) of this section applies, for the reference in the said section twenty-two to the Minister's giving notice of his findings in respect of the claim for compensation there shall be substituted a reference to the making of the contract of sale.
(4) In determining for the purposes of a claim for compensation under this Part of this Act whether, or to what extent, the value of an interest in land was depreciated by such an order as aforesaid—

(a) regard shall be had to any compensation which has become payable to the person entitled to that interest in respect of that order under section twenty-two of the principal Act otherwise than by virtue of the proviso to subsection (1) of that section;

(b) any grant of, or undertaking to grant, planning permission made or given during the period between the making of the order and the time when the Minister gives notice of his findings in respect of that claim, being a grant or undertaking which is in force at the end of that period, shall be taken into account as if it had been in force at the beginning of that period;

(c) Part VII of the principal Act shall be deemed not to have applied after the date when the order was made:

Provided that, in a case to which paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) of this section applies, no account shall be taken of any grant or undertaking made or given after the making of the contract of sale.
(5) Where the interest to which the holder of the relevant holding is entitled or, as the case may be, which he sold, is or was an interest in reversion immediately expectant upon the termination of a tenancy granted after the planning decision or order and on or after the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect as if that tenancy had not been granted").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 [General provisions as to amount of compensation for past planning decisions, revocations, etc.]:
LORD MANCROFT: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 13, leave out from ("if'') to end of line.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment provides for the possibility that the same person may be able to claim compensation under Part V of the Bill in respect of more than one interest or more that one claim holding relating to the same land, and that I think would be an undesirable state of affairs. Under Clause 43 (1) the claim holding does not have to relate to the particular interest which was depreciated before a claim for compensation can be made, and therefore it would be possible for a person owning two claim holdings, but only one depreciated interest, to recover the depreciation twice over. The Amendment provides against thin and against a number of other perhaps undesirable contingencies. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 17, at end insert—
("Provided that where the same person is entitled to such compensation as aforesaid in respect of more than one relevant holding or in respect of more than one interest, or in respect both of more than one relevant holding and of more than one interest, the aggregate principal amount payable to that person by way of such compensation in respect of all interests in respect of which he is so entitled in so far as they subsisted in the same land shall not exceed whichever is the less of the following amounts, that is to say—

(i) the aggregate of the amounts by which the value of each respectively of those interests in so far as it subsisted in that land was depreciated by the decision or order; or

(ii) the aggregate of the fractions of the respective values of all relevant holdings of which that person is the holder which attached to that land").—(Lord Mancroft.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: The next three Amendments are all drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 53, line 18, leave out from ("If") to third ("the")
Page 53, line 20, leave out ("was") and insert ("is")
Page 53, line 25, leave out ("were and were") and insert ("are and are").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Claims for compensation under Part V, and review of past decisions and orders]:
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is only drafting. It substitutes a specific reference to the relevant provisions for the rather vague form of words in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 28, leave out from first ("of") to ("shall") in line 30 and insert ("sections twenty-five and twenty-eight of this Act").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential on the one we have just agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 32, leave out ("section twenty-five of this Act") and insert ("the said section twenty-five").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment and the other two remaining Amendments on this clause have the effect of excluding revocations and modifications of orders from the Minister's power to review decisions in respect of which compensation is claimed. Considerable changes will be necessary in the clause as at present drafted before it would function properly in the case of revocation and modification orders. There is little likelihood that the powers would be of value in this field, since a strong case has always to be made out before such orders are confirmed. It has therefore been thought best to limit the power of review to refusals of planning permission and conditional permissions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 41, leave out ("in such a case") and insert ("the claim is in respect of a refusal of permission or of a grant of permission subject to conditions and").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: The next two Amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 104. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 54, line 1, leave out from ("relates") to end of line 2 and insert—
("In this subsection, the reference to a decision more favourable to the applicant shall be construed—

(a) in relation to a refusal of permission, as a reference to a decision granting the permission, either unconditionally or subject to conditions, and either as respects the whole or as respects part of the land to which the application for permission related; and

(b) in relation to a grant of permission subject to conditions, as a reference to a decision granting the permission applied for unconditionally or subject to less stringent conditions")

Page 54, line 14, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed.
Clause 46 [Payment of compensation under Part V, and supplementary provisions relating thereto]:
9.26 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved to insert at the end of subsection (2):
"Provided that if at any time an amount becomes recoverable under section thirty of this Act, as applied by the subsequent provisions of this section, in respect of that compensation, then, for the purposes of Parts II and III of this Act, paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection shall have effect as from that time as if the principal amount of that compensation had been reduced by a sum equal to seven-eighths of the amount which has so become recoverable.
(3) Where in the case of any claim holding (in this subsection referred to as "the parent holding") compensation under this Part of this Act is payable in respect of the depreciation of an interest in land by one or more planning decisions or orders, and any such decision or order did not extend to the whole of the area of the parent holding, then, both for the purposes of the last preceding subsection and for the purposes of Parts II and III of this Act—

(a) the parent holding shall be treated as having been divided immediately before the commencement of this Act into as many separate claim holdings, with such areas, as may be necessary to ensure that in the case of each holding either any such decision or order extending to the area of that holding extended to the whole thereof or that no such decision or order extended to the area of that holding;

(b) the value of each of the separate holdings respectively shall be taken to be that fraction of the value of the parent holding which then attached to the part of the area of the parent holding constituting the area of the separate holding;

(c) the authority determining the amount of any such compensation shall apportion
1056
that amount between the areas of the separate claim holdings to which the decision or order in question extended in such manner as appears to that authority proper, and the portion of that amount apportioned to the area of any separate claim holding shall be taken to be compensation payable under this Part of this Act in respect of that claim holding."

The noble Lord said: We now pass to a slightly different matter. This Amendment seeks to do two things. First, it provides for the case where compensation paid out under Part V of the Bill becomes recoverable on subsequent development of the land. So far as compensation paid under Part II is concerned, Clause 30 (9) makes the necessary adjustment by laying down, in effect, that for the purpose of calculating the unexpended balance no deduction shall be made from the original unexpended balance on account of any compensation which has been recovered. Clause 46 (3) purports to apply this provision for the purposes of Part V; but it will not function in the context of Part V, because compensation paid under that Part is deducted not from the unexpended balance but from the original claim holdings before the balance comes into existence. What I understand is needed now is a provision to the effect that recovered compensation shall not be deducted from the claim holding in arriving at the amount of the original unexpended balance. This is what the Amendment seeks to apply. Your Lordships may be a little puzzled by the sum of seven-eighths which occurs. The reason why only seven-eighths of the compensation recovered is to be disregarded in this way is that under Clause 17 (2) a capital supplement of one-seventh is added to what remains of the claim holdings in order to arrive at the original unexpended balance. The second purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that when a compensation payment is made in respect of part only of the area of a claim-holding it is debited against the fraction of the value of the holding appropriate to that part and not against the holding as a whole. The method adopted and the wording follows that used in Clause 15. It is again rather a complicated Amendment, but I think it is uncontroversial. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 9, at end insert the said proviso and subsection.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: The next Amendment is consequential on No. 107. I beg to move—
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 11, after ("Act") insert (", except subsection (9) of the said section thirty,")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48:
Provision of information as to unexpended balance, &c.
48.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Central Land Board shall, upon application therefor being made to them at any time by any person, and may at any time, if they think fit, without any application being made therefor, issue a certificate in the prescribed form with respect to any land staring whether or not any of that land has an original unexpended balance of established development value and, if it has such a balance—

(a) giving a general statement of what was taken by the Board for the purposes of Part VI of the principal Act to be the state of that land on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight; and

(b) specifying (subject to any outstanding claims under Part I or Part V of this Act) the amount of that original balance,

and any such certificate may, if the Board think fit, contain additional information with respect to acts or events in consequence of which, by virtue of any provision of this Act, a deduction falls to be made from that original balance in determining the unexpended balance, if any, of established development value of any of that land at any time thereafter.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "land," where that word first occurs, and to insert instead:
"showing the unexpended balance of established development value, if any, of any of that land immediately before the issue of the certificate."
The noble Lord said: This is an important clause concerned with the provision of information as to the unexpended balance or balances of development value. Your Lordships may remember that it was introduced at a late stage—namely, the Report stage—in the other place. It arises ultimately from a paragraph in the Government White Paper (Command 8699) which said:
"Provision will have to be made for registering against the land the maximum compensation payable and any payments made …"
1058
In his speech in another place, when moving the adoption of the clause on July 13, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government mentioned that it had been thought at one time that a register of unexpended balances could and should be established which would be open to search by those interested. He went on to say, however, that whilst that was an ideal, it had been found on closer examination that an up-to-date register would involve a volume of work out of all proportion to the benefit to be derived.
The Law Society have given some consideration to this matter and, whilst they have always taken the view that nothing Short of a complete and up-to-date register of unexpended balances of Part VI claims would really meet the case of prospective purchasers, they have endeavoured to think out something rather less ambitious which would yet serve a useful purpose. They have suggested that at least the following information should be made available as of right to all persons interested: first of all, the amount of each unexpended balance at a datum line drawn after Parts I and V of the Bill have taken effect; secondly, information as to the state of development as on July 1, 1948, of ail land carrying an unexpended balance, and, thirdly, the effect of all relevant apportionments. The Law Society Council are confident that if machinery could be set up for the prompt and efficient supply of that information, the profession, the public and prospective purchasers would be willing to pay reasonable search fees for obtaining it. Your Lordships will appreciate that Clause 48 draws a distinction between certificates of the Central Land Board given to ordinary inquirers, and certificates given when a notice to treat has been served with a view to compulsory acquisition. If your Lordships will look at subsection (2) you will see that upon a notice to treat it is laid down that a certificate will be issued
"showing the unexpended balance of established development value, if any, of any of that land immediately before the service of that notice."
That is the information that is really required in the case of ordinary inquirers.
It is true that the first requirement I mentioned is satisfied to some extent by subsection (1) as at present drawn, but it is not at all clear as to what extent the second and third suggested requirements would be met. Although there is a provision in the Bill whereby additional information may be given by the Central Land Board, your Lordships will see that that is purely at their discretion and may presumably be omitted or refused altogether if the Central Land Board think fit. The Amendment I propose provides for the issue of the same type of certificate to ordinary inquirers as the clause at present proposes should be given to a public authority which has served a notice to treat, and I submit that it is not unreasonable that the provision should be made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 11, leave out from ("land") to the end of line 27, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that we cannot meet the noble Lord and the Law Society on this point, and I should like, if your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments, to put the difficulties that stand in the way. They can be summarised, broadly, by saying that to adopt the Amendment would set an impossible task, and that the information it would produce would, in many cases, be misleading. As the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, has pointed out, information is to be given under subsection (2) of the clause to public authorities which will tell them the amount of the unexpended balance when notice to treat is served. Our difficulty is that we feel that it is not possible to provide everyone with similar information which would be up to date at the time at which they might choose to ask for it. We hoped, and at one time it was thought, as the noble Lord said, that a register of unexpended balances could be established which would be open to search by anyone interested. And as Lord Milner of Leeds has already said, my right honourable friend, in introducing the clause, said that a register would obviously be ideal, but it was found on closer examination that an up-to-date register would entail a volume of work out of all proportion to the benefits to be derived. We have come to the conclusion, after examining this
1060
very carefully, that so also would an obligation on the Central Land Board to supply on request precise and up-to-date information about unexpended balances. Your Lordships will realise that a great deal of the land in respect of which a claim on the £300 million fund was established has already been developed, and a great deal more will be developed without any question arising about the amount of the appropriate balance. The balance attached to such land is largely a matter of academic interest because there is no risk of compensation becoming payable. Yet the Amendment would impose on the Board the obligation to supply the information.
On the other point, I should like your Lordships to realise that quite misleading inferences could be drawn from a certificate stating the amount of the balance at any particular time, because even if a question of compensation did arise the amount to be deducted against the balance, because of development already carried out, might be a quite different amount from the amount assessed at the time of the certificate. You have got to take into account the debit, as I have tried to explain. So as far as private people are concerned, the subsection provides for information of a rather more modest order to be supplied on request, as the noble Lord pointed out by referring to the subsection. We feel that from this information anyone concerned with buying or selling land will be able to make a quite sound assessment of the price which he ought to ask or offer, having regard to the compensation likely to be payable in the event of a planning restriction or compulsory acquisition. I want to assure the noble Lord that there is no desire to be difficult about this matter, but it is a question of placing the burden on the Board in proportion, as the noble Lord approached the matter, to the value of what would be given. In the next few days we will apply our minds again, and if we can find, shall we say, a one-eighth of the way house instead of a halfway house we will certainly do it. That is the difficulty, and I would ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment at the moment and to convey from me to the Law Society our regrets that we have been unable to help in this matter.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: It is difficult to see why in this matter the local

1061
authority, with their vast resources and so forth, should have preference over the private individual. Having regard to the fact that the noble and learned Viscount is going to look into the matter again, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Cancellation or reduction of liability for development charges]:
9.39 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert:
"(4) Where, for the purposes of the Second Schedule to this Act, one or more development charges such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are covered by a pledge of one or more claim holdings to the Central Land Board, and by virtue of the provisions of that Schedule one or more of those claim holdings are deemed to have been extinguished or reduced in value by reference to the unpaid balance of the charge or, as the case may be, the aggregate of the unpaid balances of the charges, as therein mentioned, a sum equal to, or to the aggregate of—

(a) the value of any such holding which is deemed to have been extinguished; and

(b) the amount of the reduction in the value of any such holding which is deemed to have been reduced in value but not extinguished,

shall be deducted from that balance or that aggregate of balances and—

(i) if that sum is equal to that balance or aggregate of balances, the charge or charges and any liability of any person in respect thereof shall be discharged;

(ii) if that sum is less than that balance or aggregate of balances, the charge or charges, or the balance or respective balances thereof remaining unpaid at the commencement of this Act, shall be reduced by an amount, or, as the case may be, shall be reduced rateably by an aggregate amount, equal to that sum:

Provided that where paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to this Act applies, any development charge in connection with which the claim holding in question was pledged in accordance with the arrangements mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph and any liability of any person in respect thereof shall be discharged without regard to the treatment of the claim holding in question."
The noble and learned Viscount said: Subsection (4) of Clause 49, deals with cases where one or more claim holdings have been pledged to the Central Land Board as security for one or more development charges. Your Lordships will remember that the Second Schedule to the Bill provides far deducting the
1062
amount outstanding by way of development charge from the value of the appropriate claim holding, and Clause 49 (4) provides for the corresponding discharge of the development charge liability. It is proposed to make a number of Amendments in the Second Schedule in order to simplify the calculations required. The effect of these, if I may summarise them, will be that, where two or more development charges were incurred in respect of land in the area of the same claim holding, they are to be aggregated and the aggregate amount outstanding deducted from the holdings pledged. This change in the method of calculation employed in the Second Schedule makes necessary corresponding changes in Clause 49 (4) of the Bill, because it will no longer be possible to say that a deduction has been made from a claim holding in respect of a particular development charge, as distinct from the aggregate of outstanding charges. In the end, the changes are little more than drafting but I felt I ought to explain them to the House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 29, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 39, leave out ("subsections (2) and") and insert ("subsection").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50:
Exchequer grants to local authorities
(4) The amount of any grant paid to a local authority in accordance with regulations made under this section—

(a) where that amount is calculated by reference to annual costs incurred or treated as incurred by the authority in respect of the borrowing of money to defray expenditure in respect of which the grant is made, or by reference to the excess of such annual costs over the receipts, or the annual value of receipts, mentioned in paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection, shall not exceed an amount equal to fifty per cent. of those costs, or of that excess, as the case may be;

1063

(b) in any other case, shall not exceed an amount equal to fifty per cent. of the amount of the expenditure in respect of which the grant is made.

9.42 p.m.
LORD LUKE LORD LUKE had given notice of three Amendments, the first being, in subsection (4) (a), to leave out "fifty per cent." and insert "the specified percentage." The noble Lord said: With permission, I hope I may speak to all three Amendments, Nos. 113, 114 and 115, together. In bringing forward this Amendment to this part of Clause 50, I am well aware that this matter has been pretty fully discussed already in another place. I know also that I run the risk of a question of privilege. Nevertheless, I hope I may proceed with proposing these Amendments. I am quite unrepentant in attaching a great deal of importance to encouraging local authorities in every possible way in the provision of recreational facilities. It will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that there was a debate on an Adjournment Motion only recently in another place on the question of physical culture, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education on that occasion said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 531 (No. 168), Col. 2277):
"The honourable gentleman asked me to state that the Government were interested in physical recreation. I have no difficulty in reassuring him on that point. Indeed, it is the duty of my right honourable friend, under Section 1 of the 1944 Act, to promote the education of the people, and that, under Section 53 of the 1944 Act, includes physical recreation."
I hope not only that your Lordships will take note of that statement but also that we can take a certain amount of heart from the fact that Her Majesty's Government are again taking a little interest in physical recreation. Recreational facilities are always a sort of Cinderella among things that local authorities may provide. There is no fortunate magic wand or fairy godmother to assist them very much in their efforts. There is a very low priority for them in the scale of things, and the attitude, not unnaturally, I suppose, is, "We will do something about recreational facilities when everything else has been seen to." Therefore, I consider that any action which is calculated as a disincentive to local authorities is detrimental to progress; and I think, on a long-term view, if amenities are left
1064
out of scheming and planning there will be regrets established in this and in future generations. I consider that this part of Clause 50 is indeed a disincentive.
I should like to pay a very sincere tribute to the remarkable achievements that have been made throughout the country by voluntary effort and, indeed, by the local authorities in their efforts to establish well-ordered, well-developed, open spaces, in spite of the curtailment of Government assistance in another direction. The result of the provisions under the 1947 Act was that open spaces and allotments could be provided at low cost; the authority had only to pay the existing use value, and Government funds compensated the seller for the difference out of the compensation fund. In some cases a small development charge was payable by the local authorities. Under the present Bill local authorities who wish to provide open spaces either for themselves or by acquiring land on behalf of private clubs, are thus put back into the same sort of position as before the 1947 Act was passed—that is to say, they pay somewhere near the full market value instead of the existing use value.
Under this Bill and by this clause, grants of 50 per cent. may be made. I do not deny that this will help, but it does not come to the same thing as acquisition at existing use value and the payment of a reduced development charge. I should like to give the following example—this example was given in another place, but for the benefit of the Committee, if they will bear with me, I will repeat it. On the old basis the existing use value in this particular case was £950 and, with a development charge on the quarter rate of £395, the total came to £1,345. Under the new basis, the existing use value is £950; the admitted claim is £4,430, and the supplement is £630, making a total of £6,010, which, when the 50 per cent. grant is taken off, results in a total of £3,005, as against the old basis of £1,345. I think those figures are remarkable.
I dare say I shall be told that all the associations of local authorities have accepted the rate of 50 per cent. That is true; but I suggest that it is only because they were unable to obtain anything else by agreement. I shall also be told that some of the larger towns,

1065
particularly places dealing with bomb-damaged sites, will be better off under this Bill than before. That also is true. If a local authority wanted to provide an open space on the site of a bombed building, it did not help them that under the 1947 Act they had to pay only existing use value. There being a legal right to rebuild, the authority therefore bought at site value. This will still be the position, but the new 50 per cent. grant will be payable in every case. Previously, grants were payable only in certain cases, mainly of redevelopment areas.
The need for open spaces is not, however, the need of only a few big cities. Further, the preservation of existing playing fields from development is at least as important as providing new ones, and in this case the new Bill is unfavourable to all authorities, large and small. At this late hour, I apologise for wearying the Committee, but I feel that this is a matter of the greatest importance and I hope very much that the noble and learned Viscount may give favourable consideration to these Amendments, the first of which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 28, leave out ("fifty per cent.") and insert ("the specified percentage").—(Lord Luke.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is impossible for anyone not to be moved by the words of my noble friend, because we are all in sympathy with the objectives which he has so much in his mind and in his heart, and he has put the case very attractively to us. We had, however, to consider the general position between the central Government and local authorities on the subject matter of this Bill, and the settlement about grant for which the Bill provides is one which, on the whole (I do not think my noble friend would question this), is likely to be to the advantage of local authorities. It is not possible in matters of this kind to work on two contrary principles for the sake of giving specific treatment either to one category of authority or to all authorities in respect of one category of land. The authorities have accepted the basic principle that in future they should have to pay for the development value as assessed in 1947 with all the advantages that that gives them. That this is not an illusory or debating point is surely made clear by all the speeches
1066
we have heard from noble Lords this afternoon on that same point from (if I may speak colloquially) "the other end of the gun." Having these advantages, they are then at liberty to use the land for any proper purpose, be it allotments or anything else; but no regard is paid, in fixing the price of land, to the particular use to which it is intended it should be put. That was a feature of the old development charge system which was founded on a different principle and there is no place for it in the future, either in connection with the price of land or in connection with grant.
It is quite true—and the noble Lord, with the frankness I would expect, admitted—that, knowing that the Government would not allow both these principles to operate side by side, the authorities signified that they preferred the system of paying on 1947 values and not on current market values. It is on that basis, and on their own assessment of the probabilities, that the Government have maintained that the settlement about grant will work to the general advantage of the authorities. I do not deny that there will be some authorities who will find the acquisition of particular sites for allotments, open spaces and possibly other things more expensive than might have been the case under other arrangements. But the main point is that the broad shape of the Government's arrangements will assist the authorities.
The second point on which the Government rely is that there is great virtue in having a flat rate system of grant which is applicable to acquisitions for all purposes in this Bill. That virtue extends a long way beyond mere administrative convenience, important though that is: it goes to the root of relationships between central and local government. I cannot imagine anyone in your Lordships' House disagreeing with the view that the general object of these relationships ought to be to encourage local enterprise, initiative and independence, but the greater the financial dependence of authorities on the Exchequer, the more difficult it is to achieve that object. We think that 50 per cent. represents a very fair sharing of the burden of providing amenities which are, after all, primarily of a local character; and bearing in mind the other burdens of the taxpayer it does not seem

1067
to Her Majesty's Government unreasonable that the ratepayer should be called upon to pay half. As my right honourable friend pointed out in another place, in Committee, the introduction of any kind of variable grant system, even for specified purposes, really means going back to the beginning and reopening negotiations with the authorities on a different basis. I do not think that at this stage that is what anyone really wants.
There is the other point that if difficulties are experienced by some of the poorer authorities, the fact will be reflected in their accounts on which the Exchequer equalisation grant is calculated. I do not attach much importance to that point, but I do attach importance to the general settlement, which has been accepted, and the freedom of action within that settlement which is given to local authorities. For these reasons while, as I say, I have every personal sympathy with my noble friend's view, and more than sympathy with the objectives behind that view—no one who has been Home Secretary could have any other feeling as to the importance of the work which is behind my noble friend's plea—I am afraid that it does not really fit in with the structure of the Bill or with the arrangements that have been made. Therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I am sure that most members of the Committee will feel bitterly disappointed at the speech to which we have just listened. I have associated myself with this Amendment because I should like the Committee to appreciate that both sides were in sympathy and in agreement with the case put forward by Lord Luke. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has dealt with this matter as though it were a case of trying to get a little more grant on the part of the local authorities. We who support this Amendment are not looking at it primarily from the point of view of the local authorities. It is not that we think 50 per cent. is fair or unfair. We are prepared to accept that as a settlement. The angle from which we approach the matter is that we believe it to be essential, if we are to get playing fields, that every inducement and every encouragement should be given to local authorities
1068
to provide them. There is general agreement on this—at least, I have no reason to think that there was any disagreement on the part of any Party or any individual.
We provided this special inducement under the 1947 Act. Local authorities purchasing land for playing fields or land for allotments were able to buy it at existing use value and to pay a quarter of the normal development charge. That was a definite inducement which was held out to them. As the result of that, I believe that there was an accentuation in the process of the acquisition of playing fields. It is unfortunate that local authorities, with so many commitments on their hands, are inclined to put playing fields in a very low priority. Providing them is not particularly spectacular: it is much more spectacular to provide homes—though, of course, I am not suggesting that it is not most essential that they should do that. But unless some special inducement is held out to local authorities, whether in the form of that embodied in the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, or in some other form, it is feared that the playing fields will simply not be acquired. That is why the special inducement was provided under the 1947 Act.
The noble and learned Viscount was right in saying that there is administrative convenience in arranging all the grants provided for planning purposes at 50 per cent. and not to have variable grants. But, of course, that does not settle the relationship between the Exchequer and local authorities. We still have all sorts of grants—education grant and housing grant—though on a different basis, and I see nothing illogical in providing a special grant at special rates for playing fields. Moreover, if playing fields can be associated with housing estates, they are regarded as part of the provision of housing and attract a housing grant. I think that is true, but the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who is more familiar with these matters, will confirm it or otherwise. So that I am asking for nothing extraordinary or exceptional in seeking preferential treatment for playing fields.
The noble and learned Viscount has said that as a former Home Secretary he appreciates the need for playing fields and that he is very sympathetic with what is

1069
behind this Amendment, and I believe he is saying that quite sincerely. But sympathy is not sufficient. If we can do something to encourage local authorities to provide playing fields by regarding them in a preferential way, I think we shall be doing a great service to the community. Tidiness of administration and finance is all very well, but we should not make that our master: beyond that is what we want to use our administration to do, and I should regard this as one of the most important things we can do. Therefore, I hope the Government have not said the last word on this subject. I do not want to ask the noble and learned Viscount to add one more to the enormous list of undertakings to reconsider which he has given, and therefore I do not ask him for an undertaking—I do not know what my noble friend Lord Luke will do—but I express the hope that this will be considered. I regard this as a very important Amendment and hope that we shall hear more about it at a later stage of the Bill.
LORD O'HAGAN: I rise to say briefly how much I sympathise with the Amendment that has been moved and how thoroughly I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has been saying with regard to the necessity and desirability for the Government to reconsider this matter. I earnestly hope—and I believe I represent a good many others, both inside and outside the House—that this question will receive most careful consideration with a view to meeting the case which has been so amply made out by the noble Lord, Lord Luke.
LORD HYLTON: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Luke. I do not believe his request for a revision of the amount of the grant from 50 per cent. is more than a request for a discretionary grant. We all recognise that the provision of playing fields is probably the greatest good that can be done for the youth of this country, and I believe that if in certain cases discretion were given to the Minister to make an increased grant, it would be public money well spent.
EARL BATHURST: I should like to support the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Luke, has moved. I think if the noble and learned Viscount could see fit to make some concession to the noble
1070
Lord, he would have overwhelming support throughout the country. When we think of the disasters that have happened in English sport—for example, to the football team which met the Dynamos in Russia—and other difficulties which sporting teams are facing now, we must agree that this could be some small measure of help which the Government might give to promoters of all forms of sport—possibly not only for playing fields, but for tennis, swimming, and so forth. Local authorities could thereby help sport organisers on a larger scale. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will be able to make some concession.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My heart is getting more and more wrung, but despite what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has said, there is great difficulty, as all your Lordships know, in disturbing arrangements that have been come to, and I should be less than frank with your Lordships if I were to underestimate that difficulty. But, having said that—I like to be frank when I undertake to look at something—I say that we will look at this again, bearing in mind that point and those made by noble Lords. I do not want my noble friend Lord Luke to be misled in any way. I have indicated on one or two occasions when I thought there was great difficulty and that it was unlikely that anything would result. On the other hand, after what your Lordships have said, and especially after what the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, said in the last speech in this "round," I shall certainly have another look at the matter in the way I have indicated.
LORD LUKE: I am grateful for that second speech of the noble and learned Viscount. I will not be misled by anything that he said, because I am afraid I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that this is sympathy without any backing whatsoever. If the Government feel that it is much too difficult to upset anything now, all I can say is this: that when things were being arranged, it is a pity that the Government put themselves into that great difficulty and did not give more consideration to this matter before it was too However, I will study the reply of the noble and learned Viscount, and if I have one small crumb from him indicating that he will also study the

1071
matter again, I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52:
Recovery of certain sums from acquiring authorities
52.—(1) Where under Part I of this Act a payment becomes payable by the Central Land Board in respect of the compulsory acquisition of an interest in land by, or the sale of such an interest to, a public authority possessing compulsory purchase powers (in this section referred to as "the acquiring authority"), the Board shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be entitled to recover the amount of the payment from the acquiring authority.
(2) The preceding subsection shall not apply if—
(b) the interest was acquired, in pursuance of a notice to treat served, or a contract made, before the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, for the purposes of the development or redevelopment of any area as a whole; or
(c) the interest was acquired, in pursuance of such a notice to treat or contract as is mentioned in the last preceding paragraph, for the purposes of the use of the land as a public open space, or as allotments:
Provided that paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not affect the application of the preceding subsection—
(i) if the interest was acquired by a development corporation under the New Towns Act, 1946; or
10.8 p.m.
LORD LUKE LORD LUKE moved, in subsection (2) (c), to leave out all words beginning "in pursuance" down to and including "paragraph." The noble Lord said: I do not know whether I shall have any better luck with the next two Amendments. At this late hour I shall deal with this matter quite briefly. Under this clause, any concessions to local authorities in cases where the use of land would have a low development value reflect the fact that, without those concessions, local authorities could not be expected to undertake such development on the scale which sound planning demands. Clause 52 recognises the fairness of this principle in so far as past transactions are concerned, but the principle is forgotten, very conveniently it would appear, for the future. This Amendment and that which follows are an effort to allow local authorities to
1072
continue to purchase on the old basis land for open spaces or allotments, and the Amendments would assist local authorities who had purchased open space prior to the coming into force of the new Act. Many authorities who had not actually entered into a contract by November 18, 1952, may have gone so far in the matter that they cannot draw back. It does not seem unreasonable, therefore, that they should be allowed to purchase on the old basis. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 20, leave out from ("acquired") to ("for") in line 22.—(Lord Luke.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The present Amendment really stands in the same position as the Amendments which we have just been discussing, and I am in the same difficulty about applying two contrary principles and also in upsetting the settlement with the local authorities which has been made and which, in our view, is a fair and consistent one. Therefore, I am afraid, if I may put it shortly—I am sure your Lordships will not misunderstand me—that I cannot adopt a different position on this Amendment from that which I have indicated to the House in the previous one. I am afraid that I must leave the matter in the same position as I have already indicated.
LORD LUKE: I rather feared that that was the reply I should receive, though I cannot quite see why the Government, having made a concession, cannot continue it. However, I see that I am getting no support for this Amendment and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in the provision to subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (i). The noble Lord said: This clause provides for the recovery by the Central Land Board of payments which they make to persons holding established claims. Subsection (2) provides that in certain circumstances the Central Land Board shall not be able to recover amounts that they pay out. One of those circumstances is set out in subsection (2) (b), where land was acquired, broadly speaking, for the purposes of the development or the re-development of any area as a whole. Then we go on to make exceptions, and one of the exceptions is if

1073
the interest was acquired by a development corporation under the New Towns Act, 1946. Obviously, if this proviso were not contained in the Bill, a new town would be in the same category as local authorities who buy land for the purposes of the development of re-development of an area as a whole. Indeed, the new town is the supreme example of an authority buying land for the purpose of the development or re-development as a whole, and the Government have thought fit in such cases to exempt such authorities from the payment which the Central Land Board can normally enforce.
I must confess that I do not understand why the development corporations of new towns should be put in a less favourable position. Indeed, the Government itself took my view in the first instance, because in the first print of the Bill (I do not know at what stage it was altered) the new towns were put in exactly the same category and were exempt from these payments. But this paragraph (i) has been inserted since the print of the first Bill, and I do not understand why, except on the basis, which I should not like to believe to be true, that there is an anti-new towns bias, and with a view to appearing to put new towns in a less favourable position from a financial point of view than the local authorities. I must admit that in the last resort a good deal of the money which new towns are paying comes from the Government, but there will come a time when the new towns will be taken over by the local authorities, and it is therefore material as to what their liabilities are and what their expenditure is. It does seem to me that, since it is contemplated that when the new towns have been substantially completed they should be taken over by the local authority, there is all the more reason why the new towns should be treated in exactly the same way as a local authority. I must confess that I am completely puzzled by this exception. I move the Amendment because I believe they ought to be exempted, but partly also in order to ascertain from the noble and learned Viscount why this paragraph has been put in at this relatively late stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 26, leave out paragraph (i).—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I willingly explain to the noble Lord why this provision appears. The part of the proviso which the Amendment proposes should be deleted was included in order to ensure that the accounts of new town corporations should bear as complete an indication as possible of the cost of their operations; and the need for that is clear from the words of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, himself, when he said that at the present time the new town corporations are receiving most of their money from the Government. Therefore, it is essential that there should be as complete an indication as possible of the cost of the operations. The corporations are, in this respect, in a different position from the generality of local authorities. The generality of local authorities, by virtue of paragraph (b) of the subsection, are relieved of the obligation to pay to the Central Land Board sums paid by the Central Land Board under the Bill to former owners of land which was acquired for purposes of the development or redevelopment of an area as a whole.
The authorities, in a great many cases, might reasonably have expected not to have to make any payment in respect of development value, but it was fully to be expected that the corporations of the new towns would in due time have had to make a payment to the Exchequer in lieu of a development charge, and the Government saw no reason for extending to the corporations the waiver of recovery for which the subsection provides. I am sorry that it even crossed the mind of the noble Lord that there was any anti-new towns feeling, because that is certainly not so. But it is most important—and I am sure that the noble Lord, who, in one sense, is the more than putative father of the new towns, would himself be anxious—that we should know exactly where they stand and that that picture should not be blurred by cross-entries of this kind. I hope that will satisfy him and that he will not press this point.
10.20 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: If it were merely a matter of bookkeeping I should not press the matter very hard. Even so, I still think that this puts the new towns on a worse basis than the local authorities. But it is rather more than a matter of bookkeeping, as I have indicated.

1075
There will come a day of reckoning. That day of reckoning may not be far ahead. Some of the new towns are proceeding very well indeed, and it will not be more than five or six years before it may be possible, in the case of the most advanced of them, to wind up the development corporation, as provided for in the New Towns Act. At that time, there will have to be financial arrangements as between the local authority and the new towns, or between the local authority and the Exchequer. Of course, it does put the local authority, who eventually will be acquiring the assets of the new towns, at a disadvantage as against their normal operations if they have to reimburse the Central Land Board in this way. I hope that I am making myself clear on this rather complicated subject. It is rather academic. I do not feel that I want to press this matter to-day. It is one about which I should like to think more, and possibly the noble and learned Viscount will do so too. The Government themselves have changed their view on it. I had not seen any adequate reason why they should have changed their view. As the Bill first stood, these new towns were put in the same category as the local authorities. So I think there is possibly a question here for reconsideration, although frankly I am not going to die at the last ditch over this, particularly in the circumstances. I hope that it can be looked at again but, without seeking any undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think this is really drafting. Subsection (6) of the clause applies only to compulsory acquisitions. It is to be applied to sales by regulations made under subsection (8) (c). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 37, leave out ("or sale").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 29, leave out from ("is") to end of line 32 and insert ("by virtue of subsection (4) of section fifty-seven of this Act
1076
to be treated as apportioned to the land in which the interest acquired or sold subsisted").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54:
Special provisions relating to minerals
54.—(1) Development charges determined in respect of the winning and working of minerals shall cease to have effect in so far as they require the payment of any royalty or other sum in respect of minerals got after the commencement of this Act.
(5) The Mineral Development Charge Setoff Regulations, 1951, shall cease to have effect; but in respect of the winning and working of minerals to which those Regulations applied no development charge shall be payable or be deemed ever to have been payable.
10.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "commencement of this Act" and insert "eighteenth day of November one thousand nine hundred and fifty-two." The noble Viscount said: This is one of these mineral arrangements which has given more trouble in various planning Bills than any other class of developments. The plan here is an attempt to put all people working minerals on the same footing, and these three Amendments which follow are all aimed at the same object. The arrangements for development charge on mineral owners varied under the various Parts of the 1947 Act and their regulations. Some developers paid a lump sum development charge; others—and I think these were mainly those who had rented the land which they were proposing to work and are now working—paid the development charge on a royalty basis. Those who made these arrangements after the 1947 Act are still paying and will, under this clause, go on paying until this Bill begins to operate. On the other hand, under the 1953 Act provisions were made whereby mineral workers who had not yet started need not pay development charges in the form of royalties at all; so that there are concurrently some people who pay the royalty charge up to November 18, 1952, and others who pay up to the coming into force of this Bill. The intention is that by changing these dates they should all be put on the same basis. As I see it, therefore, it is not

1077
asking for mineral workers anything that other classes of owners or developers do not get; it is an attempt to put them all on to the same footing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 42, leave out ("commencement of this Act") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Ridley.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a subject of great complexity and I have done my best to master it. Having made that attempt, I have come to the conclusion that to accept this series of Amendments would be to treat the mineral operator more generously than the surface developer, without any justifiable reason that I cart see for doing so. I must ask the Committee to bear with me for just a few moments while I develop that point. The principle underlying the abolition of the development charge in the 1953 Act was that where a project—a large factory, perhaps, or a housing estate—had been begun before November 18, 1952, the whole of that project remained liable to development charge. That is the starting gate of this matter.
The Government (and Parliament agreed with the Government) rejected as impracticable the idea that the development charge should be turned off, like a tap, on the 18th November, 1952, but they also concluded that to apply this rule without modification in the field of mineral working would he unfair—it would involve some persons continuing to make development charge payments. This is the important point. It is really the point that my noble friend has to meet. That basic principle of continuing the development charge on projects existing at that time would have meant that those persons would continue to make development charge payments in respect of minerals into the 1970's. The Bill therefore proposes—and several people have thought that we have been overgenerous in this matter—that payments should cease when the Bill comes into operation. So it is substituting for a payment that would have gone on to the 1970's a payment that ceases when this Bill conies into operation.
My noble friend's Amendments seek to introduce in the field of mineral working a principle already rejected by Parliament in passing the 1953 Act, and so to put mineral workers a step ahead of everyone else. I have not been able to
1078
see why that would not be unfair to other developers, and for that reason alone the Amendments should be rejected. Of course, it could be argued (and the argument is used) that some mineral operators have secured an unfair advantage over their fellows because their development charges had not been determined when the Government's proposals were published, and so they were able to have them assessed for the period ending November 18, 1952, and escape liability beyond that date. But it has several times been pointed out to me in other aspects of this Bill that the fact that some mineral workers have got ahead of other mineral workers is a very poor reason for putting mineral workers as a whole a step ahead of other developers. Persons developing land by building did not have this right to demand that their development charge be assessed for a period chosen by themselves.
I am aware that my right honourable friend, in the Committee stage of the 1953 Act, promised to consider sympathetically the effect of Section 1 (2) of that Act on the mineral industry. Noble Lords will remember that Section 1 (2) of that Act provided that where a development charge was determined before November 18, 1952, or an application for a determination was received and any of the development was started before that date, the liability to pay the charge extended to all development covered by the determination or application except where the Central Land Board determined the charge for less development than that covered by the application. Mineral operators were faced with the prospect of paying development charge for years to come. Where the charge had been levied in the form of a royalty paid on the basis of the minerals as they were won, the operators have contracts with the Central Land Board which, as I have said, in some cases make them liable to pay charges up to the 1970's. As my noble friend is aware, in some contracts there are "break" clauses, enabling an operator to opt out of the contract at predetermined times; but even in these cases the first break is often not before 1955 or 1956.
It is often thought that when a Government suggest a time for the coming into operation of a Bill, they do so foe administrative convenience; but the only way in which that has influenced the

1079
decision of Her Majesty's Government is that they have selected that time instead of (as well they might have) the years of the "break" clause, which would, of course, have varied from 1955 to 1956. I am sorry I have to detain noble Lords, but I wanted my noble friend to know that not only had this matter been considered in official quarters but that I have considered it myself. I have come to the conclusion that mineral operators have not done too badly in getting the date which we have given them—the beginning of the Act. I hope my noble friend will not press for an even earlier date in these circumstances.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Having heard what the noble and learned Viscount has said, I do not want to press my Amendment at all. He has gone into great detail and I am grateful for the trouble he has taken in explaining the matter. I should have thought there were injustices between one or other of the same class of operators, but as the noble Viscount says there is a comparison here with other kinds of developers, it is not a matter I should wish to press, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved to add to subsection (5):
"Provided that in relation to any development of minerals in respect of which planning permission has been granted after the coming into operation of the said Regulations and before the commencement of this Act, nothing in this subsection shall relieve the Central Land Board of the obligation of making under Regulation 19 of the said Regulations any such payment in respect of conditions as they would have been required to make if this subsection had not been enacted."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is intended to allow the Central Land Board to honour a bargain already made. The regulations for dealing with mineral developments are abolished by this clause but in some cases there persists—or there would persist until this Bill becomes law—an arrangement whereby, in cases in which the conditions imposed for development consent were unusually high, resulting in excessive expenditure by the mineral worker in arranging for the set-off as between development charge, on the one hand, and claim for loss of development value, on the other, account was taken of conditions,
1080
and it was arranged that adjustment should be made by the Central Land Board in order to help mineral workers in the conditions to which I have referred. It is thought, therefore, that that arrangement, being in the nature of a bargain between the landlord and the mineral workers, should be allowed to persist; and unless express permission is given in this Bill, Clause 54 (5) would abolish the regulations and would remove authority to implement this arrangement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 23, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Ridley.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Again, I am sure that my noble friend will agree with me that this is a matter of some technical difficulty, and I will try to explain as shortly as I can to your Lordships how it strikes me. The practical effect of this Amendment would be that in certain cases payments would be made in respect of conditions attached to a permission to work minerals, despite the fact that under Clauses 21 and 43 no compensation is payable for such conditions unless they limit the area to be worked. The payments to be made under Regulation 19 were conceived, as I think my noble friend has indicated, against the background of a development charge. When a charge was assessed for any development, surface or mineral alike, any onerous conditions had the effect of reducing the charge, and, consequently, it was only reasonable in dealing with these near-ripe mineral cases, where the Part VI claim was taken in settlement of the charge, to provide for payment to be made by the Central Land Board where the conditions were specially onerous. But the case for these payments vanished with the abolition of development charge.
I am sure that my noble friend has in mind that Regulation 19 of the Mineral Development Charge Set-Off Regulations, 1951, which are repealed by subsection (5) of Clause 54, provided for payments to be made in respect of the cost of work necessary for complying with certain conditions attaching to a planning permission to work minerals. And the conditions were those which went beyond the mineral undertaker's obligations under his lease where the estimated cost of the additional work that was necessary exceeded one-tenth of the relevant development charge. Where the charge

1081
was assessed in respect of the working of non-near-ripe minerals, a reduction in the charge was made to take account of the cost of so-called "onerous conditions." A similar principle was therefore applied to near-ripe minerals, but as, under the near-ripe scheme, development charge was deemed to have been set-off against the Part VI claim, the regulations provided for a payment to be made by the Central Land Board in appropriate cases to represent a reduction in charge.
As I see it, my noble friend's Amendment would preserve the effect of Regulation 19 in respect of conditions attached to a planning permission issued between the coming into operation of the Set-Off Regulations and the date of the commencement of the Bill. It is argued that in many cases operators did not challenge conditions attached to permissions granted in this period because they knew that they would be paid for the cost of complying. But the chances of successful challenge do not seem to me adequate reason for providing now for special additional payments in all cases.
I do not know whether my noble friend has considered the fact that this concession is to be applied only to near-ripe minerals which have already been generously treated, inasmuch as, whilst in the development charge world charge was almost invariably greater than the relevant Part VI claim, the two were accepted as equivalent under the set-off regulations. I think that this may fairly be said to represent a reduction in development charge already, and any additional reduction would be indefensible by comparison with other minerals and surface development. I am sorry to put to your Lordships so technical a point, but it did not seem to me that the last point I was making, as to the action taken fairly representing a reduction, would be intelligible to anyone reading it unless I put forward the preliminary ground. Therefore, I have put it at some length, because I want my noble friend to understand that his point has been carefully considered. For these reasons, I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: The noble and learned Viscount has given me a great deal of detail, so much so that I cannot properly take it in; in addition to which, I have a train to catch. I shall take the opportunity of reading his very detailed
1082
and carefully worked out account of this when it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Meantime, I can do nothing but beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Contributions to Ironstone Restoration Fund]:
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment enables the Minister to make orders, subject to annulment in either House, exempting certain ironstone land owned by charities from the liabilities imposed by the Mineral Workings Act. 1951, as amended by this clause, to contribute a full 2¼d. a ton to the Ironstone Restoration Fund. This is a procedural point and at this late hour I will not go into the reason for this rather curious arrangement. I do not think the Amendment will occasion your Lordships any discomfort. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 43, at end insert ("and the Minister may by order made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, direct that, as from the date of the order or such earlier date as may be specified in the order, this subsection shall not apply to such other ironstone as may be so specified, being ironstone an interest in which is held on the date of the order on charitable trusts or for charitable purposes.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: Subsection, (3) of this clause, the deletion of which is proposed, provides for a deduction to be made for the Ironstone Restoration Fund, to which I have just referred, from all compensation payments made in respect of ironstone under this Bill or any other enactment—for instance, the Mining Code. The Amendment is made in order to simplify the administration of the provisions of the Bill in relation to the Fund. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 23, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57:
Recovery, on subsequent development, of payments under s. 59 of principal Act
(3) Section thirty of this Act shall have effect in relation to notices registered under this section as it has effect in relation to notices registered under section twenty-nine of this Act:
Provided that—
(b) in the case of development of land initiated after the date of commencement of this Act but before the expiration of a period of one year commencing with that date, a notice registered under this section in respect of that land shall, irrespective of the date of registration, be treated for the purposes of the said section thirty as having been so registered before the development was initiated; and
LORD MANCROFT: Subsection (7) of Clause 52 provides for the recovery from public authorities of any payments made under Section 59 of the 1947 Act in respect of interests in land which they have acquired. An exception is to be made in the cases specified in subsections (2) and (3) of the clause. This Amendment is necessary to prevent that exception from being nullified by the provisions of the present clause, under which Section 59 payments are to be registered as local land charges and recoverable on development of the land. The effect of the Amendment is that these excepted payments will not be registered and thus will not be recoverable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 13, at end insert ("or which would be so recoverable but for the provisions of paragraph (i) of the proviso to that subsection.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This is a drafting Amendment. Subsection (9) of Clause 30 is not applicable in the present context. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 34, after ("Act") insert (", except subsection (9) thereof,").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ogmore, who asks me to apologise for not moving it himself. A moment ago the noble Lord, Lord
1084
Mancroft, in moving the Amendment deleting a subsection said that it would simplify the administration of the Bill. I would suggest that the deletion of the paragraph as proposed by this Amendment would equally simplify administration. This is an Amendment to which the Law Society attach some importance. Put briefly, paragraph (b) provides that at any time within a year after the commencement of the Act there may be registered a notice which will affect the owner of the land. It will be a notice under which a certain sum of money is recoverable under earlier clauses. If such a notice is inserted, it is to be treated as if it had been inserted before any proposed development had been initiated. In other words, at any time within a year a notice that is put on the register is treated as if it had been put on a year before. I realise that in the next Amendment, the noble and learned Viscount, having appreciated that that would be a monstrous proposition, is to move to reduce the monstrosity to six months; but it still remains a monstrous proposition that a notice is put on affecting the property, and is then regarded as if it had been put on six months earlier. The iniquity of this is that in the meantime, even during the six months, transactions may have taken place.
The noble and learned Viscount has been talking about three months as a long time; and six months is certainly a long time. An innocent purchaser may have bought land and may have proceeded to develop it, and he then finds, perhaps after six months, that he becomes liable for the repayment of compensation which has been paid to a previous owner under Clause 59 of the Bill. That is really a grave injustice. I think it is a novel procedure in British law that a notice affecting land is made retrospective as if the notice had been put on six months or a year before. If there is such a precedent, I should be interested to know of it. I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that this really cannot stand up to scrutiny and that something has got to be done about this paragraph. I move to delete the paragraph, but I do not think that this entirely meets the case. I hope that if the noble and learned Viscount cannot delete the paragraph he will, at any rate, do something

1085
to see that this iniquitous retrospective imposition is rectified. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 43, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government would not dissent from the proposition—and I certainly would not—that the registration of land charges which would have some measure of retrospective effect is far better avoided, but I want to put the special circumstances of the present case, because they do create a considerable difficulty, and it is difficult to see the way out. The clause provides that certain payments which have already been issued by the Central Land Board, under the special scheme dealing with development value in war-damaged property, shall be recovered by the Board if the land is developed, and the payments were made on the footing that if the land was developed then development charge would have to be paid. Now that development charge has gone it would be difficult to defend—indeed, it would be absurd—if the payments were left in the hands of people who are quite free to realise the development value in bricks and mortar.
That is the general position. Quite plainly, of course, people who have already started developing when the Bill conies into operation cannot readily be required to pay back the money they have received from the Central Land Board. But that is no reason why those who develop after the Bill is law should not be required to pay, notwithstanding that it may be a few months before all the payments made by the Board can, in fact, be registered as local land charges. The difficulty there is the simple one that registration cannot begin until the Bill gives statutory authority to do it. Now a word on the question of warning. The White Paper itself, which was published in November, 1952, gave warning of the Government's intentions, and it is not likely that any purchaser acting on prudent advice will buy or will have bought land in respect of which one of these recoverable payments has been made without knowing that if he develops it after the Bill comes into operation he will have to repay.
It was originally supposed that it would be about a year before the work of registration
1086
could be done, but the Board now think they will manage it in about six months. It is therefore possible to reduce to six months, as the Government Amendment proposes, the period during which the commencement of development may bring about a recovery payment, notwithstanding that a charge was not registered at the time when development begins. If this matter could be tidied, I should be only too delighted to do it. I do not think any iniquity is being perpetrated on anyone, but I do not like this method of going about things. If, in the meantime, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, or the Law Society, or anyone else, can make any suggestion for further improving the provision, I shall be prepared to consider it, but, as I said, in this case the real trouble is the simple one, that registration cannot begin until the Bill gives statutory authority to do it. I do not see how I can abandon the position.
LORD SILKIN: The noble and learned Viscount has explained why this provision is in the Bill, but I do not think he has justified it. It is impossible to justify a provision of this kind: putting on a charge to-day, and then saying that it must be deemed to have been put on a year ago. I understand the position of the person who has received his money and who is still in possession of the land and then wants to develop it. I do not think he needs taking care of. But I am concerned about the innocent purchaser. How is he to know that his predecessor has received a sum of money by way of compensation? He would not necessarily know, and if he asks he may not get an answer. Amidst all the complexities of this Bill, would it occur to most people? Anybody might trip up and not ask the question. I feel that this matter requires much more consideration. The noble and learned Viscount says that if I can suggest anything, or the Law Society, he will consider it. Fortunately for me, I am not drafting this Bill. Her Majesty's Government have a very able staff of Parliamentary draftsmen whose job it is to do that. I am not competent to do it. My proposal is to delete the offending paragraph. However, I take it that the noble and learned Viscount will himself apply his mind to this problem, and on that assumption I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is tabled in pursuance of an undertaking given by the Minister to consider whether the period during which registration of a Section 59 payment should have retrospective effect could not be reduced. We have discussed this point. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will indicate whether I can leave the moving of this Amendment in that short form, as we have discussed it on the last Amendment. Unless he desires me to go on, I will move the Amendment without further comment.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 45, leave out ("one year") and insert ("six months").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: Of the two evils I would rather have six months than twelve months.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved to add to subsection (5):
"All claims put forward under the scheme in relation to all classes of interest described in section fifty-nine, to be treated as claims under section fifty-eight, notwithstanding that they are not in respect of 'qualified interests' under the scheme."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment in my name. I wish to put forward this point because I understand that injustice has been caused through a confusion arising under the principal Act regarding the application of Sections 58 and 59. Section 59 as drawn in the principal Act appears to be the right section under which to apply for payment for war damaged land. When the regulations governing the sections were issued it was found that Section 59 was not the right section, but by that time it was too late to put in a claim under Section 58. This matter has given rise to considerable financial loss, and I put down my Amendment in the hope that the Government will be in a generous mood, and will be prepared, if not to accept this Amendment at least to take some action to put this matter right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 23, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Hylton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I sympathise with my noble friend's heart, but I think he would sympathise with my mind if I tried to legislate in order to cover particular difficulties and mistakes.
1088
I am not going to refer, as my noble friend has not done so, either to the regulations or to the mistakes, but I can say this: that the Amendment is, in substance, an attempt to allow the making of late claims on behalf of a particular group of persons who failed to make a claim. I say no more than that. The position arose in this way. The cases in question relate to war-damaged land which would have qualified for a cost of works payment under the War Damage Act had the owners been permitted to rebuild. It was known when the 1947 Act came into force that the local authority proposed to acquire the land and they have since done so. Under Section 53 of the 1947 Act the price which the owner of a war-damaged property qualifying for a cost of works payment receives from the acquiring authority represents the value which that property would have for its existing use if all the damage had been made good. He has therefore no further right to any war damage payment, and the payment under the War Damage Act is converted into a value payment which goes to the acquiring authority. The purpose of Section 59 was to enable payments to be made to supplement value payments under the War Damage Act in cases where the amount of the value payment had been depressed because of the presence of development value in the damaged land. I am sure that examples occur to your Lordships.
That was the purpose of Section 59. The provisions of Section 59 are wide enough to cover converted value payments, and the scheme as made does cover cases where a cost of works payment was converted, at the owner's wish, into a value payment. The scheme does not cover converted value payments arising from compulsory acquisition, and there was no reason why the owners of these properties should have expected to benefit under it. As has already been seen, the converted value payment belongs to the acquiring authority. So long as the properties remained with the original owners they qualified for a cost of works payment. At no stage had those owners any interest in the value payment, and it was hardly likely that they would benefit under a scheme designed to supplement value payments. Unfortunately they jumped to the conclusion that because the Section 59 scheme could,

1089
however inappropriately, cover these converted value payments, it would do so, and they failed even to make a precautionary claim on the £300 million fund. Failure to claim in good time is always regrettable, but I hope that this explanation, which I have gone into in detail, of the basis without going into facts or locality, will convince the Committee that the case for aiding this category of "non-claimants" is neither stronger nor weaker than that for aiding "non-claimants" in general, a case which this House has observed. I am sorry not to be able to help my noble friend, especially in view of all the assistance that he has given to this House on the Bill, but I could not manage to stretch the Bill so far.
LORD HYLTON: I regret to hear what the noble and learned Viscount says, because these people have been put in a most difficult position. As I understand it, the difficulty is that the regulations governing the clause under which application was to be made were produced at such a late date that it was too late for them to change Clause 58. However, I cannot press the matter any further. There are people suffering great loss from the circumstances of the case. I hope that some way will be found of giving them some redress.
EARL BATHURST: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. This is a most complicated case, about which I know the noble and learned Viscount has the full facts. It has been brought forward to your Lordships' House by an association which represents many hundreds, in fact thousands, of landowners or property owners, most of whom own just a few cottages, largely in the North Country.
Some of the people who are affected by this particular case are very hard hit indeed. In fact, one is an almost disastrous case comparable to that of Mr. Pilgrim, about which we have heard. Unfortunately (or fortunately, I suppose, for him), this man has not taken the same method of publicising the injustices which may occur through the complications of such measures as this Bill, the principal Act and all the rigmarole that goes with it.
The mistake, if indeed it is a mistake, has arisen. Whether or not it is a justifiable mistake, nevertheless it has arisen,
1090
and with a firm who are of the highest repute. If that can happen in this particular case, what more may happen in cases where somebody has not been able to take advantage of those who are supposed to know the ins and outs of such regulations? I beg Her Majesty's Government to endeavour to make some form of concession to alleviate such cases as this. It is apparently possible to change from Section 58 to Section 59. It would seem just in this particular case, which is only a small case in terms of cash but a most vital one in terms of hardship and welfare to those people concerned, that Her Majesty's Government should consider making it possible to change these cases to be studied under Section 59 back to Section 58. I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in this matter.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 58 agreed to.
11.6 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, after Clause 58 to insert the following new clause:
Applications for permission for industrial development
".—(1) Where, after the commencement of this Act, an application is made to a local planning authority for permission to develop land by the erection thereon of an industrial building, being an application which would, apart from this section, be of no effect by virtue of subsection (4) of section fourteen of the principal Act (which provides that certain applications for such permission shall be of no effect unless it is certified by the Board of Trade that the development in question can be carried out consistently with the proper distribution of industry), the local planning authority shall consider whether, if the requirements of the said subsection (4) had been satisfied, they would nevertheless have refused the permission sought by the application either as respects the whole or as respects part of the land to which the application relates; and if they are of opinion that they would so have refused that permission, they shall serve on the applicant a notice in writing to that effect.
(2) Where a notice has been served under the preceding subsection as respects the whole or part of any land, the provisions of this Act and of sections nineteen and twenty of the principal Act, and, where by virtue of the preceding provisions of this subsection a direction has been given under subsection (3) of section twenty-six of this Act, the other provisions of the principal Act, shall have effect as respects that land or that part thereof as if the application had been of effect and permission had been refused.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause has already been mentioned by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in connection with the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, to Clause 16—that is Amendment No. 28. The effect of the clause is that, though the provisions of Section 14 (4) of the 1947 Act will remain unaltered, an owner of land will be able to obtain what is, for compensation purposes, the equivalent of a refusal of planning permission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 58, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Dissolution of Central Land Board]:
LORD MANCROFT: Both the Amendments to Clause 62 are either drafting or consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 76, line 43, leave out ("the date of the making of") and insert ("such date as may be specified in").
Page 77, line 8, at end insert—
("(4) On the dissolution of the Central Land Board by an Order in Council under this section, sections two and three of the principal Act (which relate to that Board) shall cease to have effect.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [General provisions as to calculation of value]:
LORD MANCROFT: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 39, at end insert—
("(2) Where, for the purposes of any of the provisions of this Act, a value falls to be calculated by reference to the duration of a tenancy, and by reason of any option or other contractual right with respect to the determination, renewal or continuance of the tenancy, the date of expiration of the tenancy is not ascertainable with certainty, that date shall be taken to be such as appears reasonable and probable having regard to the interests of the party by whom the option is exercisable or in whose favour the right
1092
operates and to any other material considerations subsisting at the time when the calculation of the value falls to be made."—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 65 (Provisions as to mortgages, settlements, ecclesiastical property, &c.]:
LORD MANCROFT: The regulations to be made under Clause 65 will provide for diverting to the mortgagee any compensation due in respect of depreciation in the value of the mortgagor's interest caused by planning restrictions, if the mortgage was entered into before July 1, 1948, or after the Bill comes into operation. In cases where the mortgage extends only to part of the land in which the mortgagor's interest subsists it seems right that the amount diverted should be limited to that part of the total compensation which relates to the mortgaged land. The clause as drafted would not permit regulations to be made in this sense. The Amendment which I now move gives the necessary powers.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 1, leave out from ("compensation") to ("thereof") and insert ("or any part thereof is to be paid and as to the application of any such payment or compensation or any part").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: Clause 65 already empowers the making of regulations to divert compensation due to the owner of an interest subject to a rentcharge to the owner of that rentcharge. This Amendment is necessary to provide for consequential reduction in the amount of the rentcharge and for reference of any disputes to the Lands Tribunal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 10, at end insert—
("and any such regulations may, in a case where any payment or compensation, or any part thereof, is by virtue of those regulations to be paid to the owner of a rentcharge, apply all or any of the provisions of section twenty-five of the War Damage Act, 1943 (which relates to the rights of owners of rentcharges as to payments for war damage), subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed by the regulations and may provide for disputes arising under the regulations so far as they relate to rentcharges to be referred to the Lands Tribunal for determination by that Tribunal").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This is a drafting Amendment. The revised version makes explicit reference to the relevant provisions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 23, leave out from ("the") to end of line 27 and insert ("payment of any sum recoverable under section thirty, forty-one, forty-six or fifty-seven of this Act").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Provisions as to regulations]:
LORD MANCROFT: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 26, leave out lines 26 to 28—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68:
Interpretation
"valuable consideration" does not include marriage or a nominal consideration;
LORD MANCROFT: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82 line 11, at end insert—
("'compensation on the basis of existing use' means compensation with respect to the assessment of which the following provisions apply, that is to say, the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, as modified by sections fifty-one, fifty-three and fifty-four of the principal Act, not being compensation calculated on the basis of equivalent reinstatement or on the basis of prevailing use and excluding any compensation for disturbance or for severance or injurious affection;").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This definition is required, in particular, in connection with the amended Clause 32 of the new Schedule which goes with it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 17, at end insert—
("'rentcharge' includes any annual sum charged on land, not being rent incident to a reversion;").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.12 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, in the definition of "valuable consideration," to omit "or a nominal consideration."
1094
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Rathcreedan wishes me to apologise for the fact that he has been compelled to leave the Committee, and I now beg to move the Amendment standing in his name. This again is an Amendment to which the Law Society attach some little importance. They are not happy about the definition of "valuable consideration." Does it include "nominal consideration"? The latter term, so far as I am aware, has no definite meaning in law, and it appears to the Law Society that this definition does more harm than good. It throws doubt on what is meant by the term "valuable consideration," which is an expression well known to the law and is otherwise quite clear. This Amendment proposes as the definition "'Valuable consideration' does not include marriage." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 35, leave out from ("marriage") to end of line 36.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
LORD MANCROFT: If the noble Lord's Amendment is accepted, surely it will look a little odd, apart from the meaning in the draft, to have a mere statement that "'valuable consideration' does not include marriage." It may need further explanation in the definition clause of the Bill. I admit that the words "or a nominal consideration" do not greatly add to the content of the definition, but it is felt wiser to avoid possible doubt by keeping them in. The point was discussed at great length on Committee stage in another place, and both sides then agreed that a definition of "valuable consideration" was necessary and ought in terms to exclude nominal consideration. It is not a very important point and there is not very much between the two forms, but I should prefer to see the wording left as it now is. If the Law Society feel very strongly about the matter I will look at it again, but I have been carefully through the debates in another place and I have listened to what the noble Lord has said, in abbreviated form, today, and I am not convinced that his Amendment will improve the definition.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Would the noble Lord be good enough to give me a definition of "nominal consideration"?
LORD MANCROFT: That I could not do, as the noble Lord well knows. Nobody could be expected to tackle that; there is not time for it. We will bear that difficulty in mind. I think the definition as it now stands is liable to cause less confusion than it would be if the words which the noble Lord wants taken out were in fact removed.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Do I understand that the noble Lord will have another look at this? It seems absurd to include "nominal consideration" when the noble Lord cannot give me any definition of that term. "Valuable consideration" one can get a definition of. I remember it from my student days. There was something about a canary and a tomtit—I forget the precise definition. But it does seem absurd to include in an interpretation clause that the term "valuable consideration" does not include marriage or a nominal consideration. It is obvious that it does not include a nominal consideration, and there is no necessity to mention "nominal consideration" because no one can give a definition of it. I should have thought that the Government would be well advised to accept the Amendment.
LORD MANCROFT: It is not merely "nominal consideration" it is "a nominal consideration." I have told the noble Lord that I cannot give him a definition: it is like an elephant—it is difficult to define, but you know it when you see it. "Nominal consideration" can be very difficult in a variety of circumstances. There are some considerations which may be big in figures but still merely nominal. Because of the uncertainty, I think it is as well to keep the wording as it is, thereby showing what the draftsman has in mind.
LORD SILKIN: I should have thought that in the circumstances the Amendment is necessary, but apparently the noble Lord thinks it unnecessary. It sounds rather odd to say that "'valuable consideration' does not include marriage or a nominal consideration." The noble Lord's view seems to be that the words add nothing but do no harm.
LORD MANCROFT: I think they help.
LORD SILKIN: I thought the noble Lord said they do no harm. But if they have no legal significance I wonder
1096
whether it is necessary to have a definition of "valuable consideration". It is a term which is well understood in legal language; it has been the subject of many judicial decisions. When you talk about "valuable considerations" you know where you are. I agree there is a point with regard to marriage, but cannot that be inserted in one of the clauses dealing with "valuable consideration"? I suggest that this point is worth looking at and that, rather than have words which do not mean a thing, but which, according to the Law Society, will create difficulties, it would be better to leave out these words. Of course, I know that if we were to content ourselves with discussions in another place there would be no need for us to be sitting here at 11.15 p.m. Your Lordships may nevertheless think that, even after the discussions in another place, we can still improve the Bill. I think this is a case in which we can improve it.
LORD MANCROFT: I should not dream of suggesting that merely because the matter has been discussed in another place we should not discuss it here, even at seventeen minutes past eleven. Of course, I will look at it again to see what the difficulty is as the Law Society sees it. Having looked at the Report of the debate in another place, having listened to the noble Lords who have spoken, and having had a little experience of construing "nominal" and "valuable consideration" I am still not convinced, but I will see whether the draftsmen cannot reconsider it again.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am obliged to the noble Lord, and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MANCROFT: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 10, leave out ("the making of a contract") and insert ("an option are references to an option in writing or attested as aforesaid; and references to the making of a contract or to the grant of an option").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 13, leave out lines 13 and 14.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Minor and consequential amendments, and repeals]:
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment adds Sections 54 and 89 of the 1947 Act to the provisions in relation to which the Third Schedule of that Act is to have effect in its unamended form. Both sections relate to requisitioned land and their effect, so far as material, is that for the purpose of finding the existing use value and the restricted value of an interest in such land, references in the Third Schedule to the appointed day should be construed as references to the beginning of the period of requisition. It would be wrong for this transposition of date to be affected by the Amendments being made in the Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 23, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 26 and insert ("the following provisions of that Act, that is to say section fifty-four (which relates to the assessment of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of requisitioned land), section sixty-one (which relates to the ascertainment of development values), section sixty-nine (which relates to development charges) and subsection (1) of section eighty-nine (which relates to the calculation of the development value of requisitioned land).")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule [Modifications of provisions of principal Act as to development value]:
LORD MANCROFT: Paragraph 4 of the Schedule is concerned to remedy anomalies arising from the fact that the compulsory purchase provisions of the Act came into operation almost a year before the appointed date. Claims on the £300 million fund were assessed by a reference to the state of the land on the appointed day, and if the acquiring authority had constructed buildings or
1098
carried out works before that date, a false assessment of the development value in the erstwhile owner's interest would result. Provisions were inserted in Section 91 of the 1947 Act to meet this difficulty, but they provide for only some of the cases and it has been found necessary to extend them by paragraph 4 of the Schedule. As at present drafted, that paragraph was confined to cases where services have been provided and buildings begun but not completed. It has now been discovered that in some cases houses were completed before the appointed day, and the paragraph has to be extended to cover that point. That is the purpose of the Amendment, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 45, leave out ("begun but not completed") and insert ("carried out").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is little more than drafting. The present wording implies that the work of redetermination cannot be done until an occasion for payment arises. The Amendment puts that right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 49, leave out from ("shall") to ("be") in line 50.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Claims pledged to Central Land Board as security for development charges]:
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved in Paragraph 1 to insert after subparagraph (1)—
("(2) All pledges of claim holdings to the Central Land Board made by the same person, whether or not made at the same time, other than any pledge to which sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule applies, shall for the purposes of this Schedule be treated collectively as a single pledge made at the time when the last of those pledges was made.
(3) Where a development charge covered by a pledge to the Central Land Board was determined in respect of land which constitutes the whole or part of the area of a claim holding not comprised in the pledge, being a holding of which the holder is the person who would, apart from the pledge, be liable to pay the unpaid balance of the development charge, then, for the purposes of this Schedule, that claim holding shall be deemed to be comprised in the pledge.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has two purposes. Both of them are important in connection with what was known as the builders' near-ripe scheme. As noble Lords may recall, this was an arrangement under which builders were promised that certain of their claims on the £300 million fund would be met in full, and were allowed to pledge them to the Central Land Board and then use them as a kind of credit against which development charges could be debited. The proposed new subparagraph is intended to simplify the application of the Schedule to cases coming under this scheme. It happens with the builders' near-ripe scheme, as with ordinary banking accounts, that the paying-in, or in this case the pledging, was not done all at one and the same time, any more than the process of drawing out or debiting. It was a running account. It will be much easier, however, to apply the Schedule in this sort of case if the Central Land Board can proceed as if all the pledging of claims by any one person had been done at one and the same time. That is what the Amendment seeks to effect.
The new subparagraph is designed to meet a point which can be most easily explained by a simple example. Suppose a builder owns two fields—Blackacre and Whiteacre. The claim for Blackacre is pledged to the Board under this near-ripe scheme, and then Whiteacre is developed and the development charge debited against the claim on Blackacre. The result is that Whiteacre, which has been built on and is never likely for that reason to be the subject of a compensation payment, will have a substantial unexpended balance, while Blackacre, which is bare land, will have little or none. Obviously it would be much better for all concerned if the claim on Whiteacre could be used to meet the development charge, so that Blackacre, the undeveloped land, could have an unexpended balance. That is what this subparagraph does. It deems the claim on Whiteacre to have been pledged as well as that on Blackacre—assuming, of course, that the same man still owns it—and then the remainder of the schedule will ensure that the claim on Whiteacre, the land that was developed, is used up before that on Blackacre is touched. I think your Lordships will agree that that is an ingenious and satisfactory
1100
solution of a rather difficult problem. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 28, at end insert the said subparagraphs.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 25, leave out from ("where") to ("and") in line 26 and insert ("a pledge to the Central Land Board comprised one or more claim holdings").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.26 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved to leave out paragraphs 4 and 5 and insert:
("4. Where a pledge to the Central Land Board comprised only a single claim holding with an area of which every part either consisted of, or formed part of, the land in respect of which some development charge covered by the pledge was determined, and the last preceding paragraph does not apply, the unpaid balance of the development charge covered by the pledge, or, if more than one, the aggregate of the unpaid balances of all the development charges covered by the pledge, shall be deducted from the value of the holding, and the value of that holding shall be deemed to have been reduced accordingly as from the time of the pledge.
5.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect in the case of a pledge of one or more claim holdings to the Central Land Board to which neither of the two last preceding paragraphs applies.
(2) Any claim holding comprised in the pledge with an area of which every part either consisted of, or formed part of, the land in respect of which some development charge covered by the pledge was determined shall he allocated to the development charge in question or, if more than one, to those development charges collectively.
(3) Any claim holding comprised in the pledge with an area part of which did, and part of which did not, consist of, or form part of, such land as aforesaid shall be treated as if, at the time of the pledge, the claim holding (in this sub-paragraph referred to as 'the parent holding') had been divided into two separate claim holdings, that is to say—

(a) a claim holding with an area consisting of so much of the area of the parent holding as consisted of, or formed part of, such land as aforesaid and with a value equal to that fraction of the value of the parent holding which then attached to that part of the area of the parent holding; and

(b) a claim holding with an area consisting of the residue of the area of the parent holding and with a value equal to that fraction of the value of the parent holding which then attached to the residue of the area of the parent holding,

and the claim holding referred to in head (a) of this sub-paragraph shall be allocated to the

1101
development charge in question, or, if more than one, to those development charges collectively.
(4) Paragraph 3 or 4 of this Schedule shall then apply in relation to each claim holding, if any, allocated in accordance with the last two preceding sub-paragraphs to any development charge, or to any development charges collectively, as if the pledge had comprised only that claim holding and had covered only that development charge or those development charges.
(5) If after the application of the preceding provisions of this paragraph there remains outstanding any claim holding not allocated in accordance with those provisions, or any claim holding so allocated which has been reduced in value but not extinguished, an amount equal to the aggregate of—

(a) the unpaid balance of any development charge covered by the pledge to which no claim holding was allocated as aforesaid; and

(b) the amount, if any, by which the value of any claim holding allocated as aforesaid which is deemed to have been extinguished falls short of the unpaid balance of the development charge, or the aggregate of the unpaid balances of the development charges, to which it was so allocated,

shall be deducted from the value of the claim holding so remaining outstanding, or, if more than one, shall be deducted rateably from the respective values of those claim holdings, and the value of any such holding shall be deemed to have been reduced accordingly as from the time of the pledge.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is connected with the Amendment already made to Clause 49 (4), Amendment No. 111. Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Schedule are, as your Lordships will possibly have noticed, somewhat complicated, even in their proposed new dress, but the underlying principle is perfectly simple. It is, in fact, the principle which emerges from the example which I ventured to give your Lordships on the last Amendment but one. It is roughly that when a development charge or charges are being met in this way by deduction from one or more claim holding, so far as possible each charge shall be deducted from each claim holding or part of a claim holding appropriate to the land developed. This is achieved in the Schedule by a process of allocation; to each development charge is allocated the claim holding related to the claim developed.
Where only part of the area of a holding was developed, the holding is to be split into two so as to produce a separate holding for the area developed and then that holding is allocated to the development charge. When each development
1102
charge has been met so far as possible from its allocated holding, anything still outstanding is to be recovered by a proportionate deduction from all the remaining holdings. That is as the Schedule stands. It has, however, been found to involve a good deal of unnecessary work where a whole succession of development charges has been incurred in respect of land in the area of the same holding. It could, for instance, mean a separate calculation in respect of each house in a road. This can be avoided, without sacrificing the underlying principle, by aggregating all the charges in respect of land in the same holding area and then doing one sum in respect of the aggregate of those charges. That is the sense of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 33, leave out paragraphs 4 and 5 and insert the said new paragraphs.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After the Fourth Schedule, insert the following new Schedule:

FIFTH SCHEDULE

  APPORTIONMENT OF UNEXPENDED BALANCE OF ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT VALUE
  Determination of Relevant Area
  1.—(1) Where, in the case of a compulsory acquisition to which Part III of this Act applies, any area of the relevant land which, immediately before the service of the notice to treat, has an unexpended balance of established development value does not satisfy the conditions set out in the next following subparagraph, that area shall be treated as divided into as many separate areas as may be requisite to ensure that each of those separate areas satisfies those conditions.
  (2) The conditions referred to in the preceding sub-paragraph are—

  (a) that all the interests (other than excepted interests) subsisting in the area in question subsist in the whole thereof; and

  (b) that any rentcharge charged on the area in question is charged on the whole thereof.

  (3) Any area of the relevant land which has an unexpended balance of established development value and which complies with the conditions set out in the last preceding sub-paragraph is in this Schedule referred to in relation to the interests subsisting therein as 'the relevant area', and the subsequent provisions of this Schedule shall have effect separately in relation to each relevant area.
  Preliminary Calculations.
  2. There shall be calculated the amount referable to the relevant area of the rent which might reasonably be expected to be reserved if the relevant land were to be let on terms prohibiting the carrying out of any new development but permitting the carrying out of any other development; and the amount so calculated is in this Schedule referred to as 'the existing use rent'.
  3.—(1) If—

  (a) in the case of an interest in fee simple which is subject to a rentcharge; or

  (b) in the case of a tenancy,

  so much of the rent reserved under the rentcharge or tenancy as is referable to the relevant area exceeds the existing use rent, there shall be calculated the capital value of the right to receive for the period of the remainder of the term of the rentcharge or tenancy an annual payment equal to the excess; and any amount so calculated in the case of any interest is in this Schedule referred to as 'the rental liability' of that interest.
  (2) Where the interest in fee simple is subject to more than one rentcharge, then, for the purposes of the preceding sub-paragraph, as respects any period included in the term of two or more of those rentcharges, those two or more rentcharges shall be treated as a single rentcharge charged on the relevant area for the duration of that period with a rent reserved thereunder of an amount equal to the aggregate of so much of their respective rents as is referable to the relevant area.
  4. In the case of any interest in reversion—

  (a) there shall be calculated the capital value as at the time immediately before the service of the notice to treat of the right to receive a sum equal to the unexpended balance of established development value of the relevant area at that time, but payable at the expiration of the tenancy upon the termination of which the interest in question is immediately expectant; and the amount so calculated in the case of any interest is in this Schedule referred to as 'the reversionary development value' of that interest;

  (b) if so much of the rent reserved under the tenancy aforesaid as is referable to the relevant area exceeds the existing use rent, there shall also be calculated the capital value as at the time aforesaid of the right to receive for the period of the remainder of the term of that tenancy an annual payment equal to the excess; and any amount so determined in the case of any interest is in this Schedule referred to as 'the rental increment' of that interest.

  Apportionment of unexpended balance between interests
  5. Where two or more interests other than excepted interests subsist in the relevant area, the portion of the unexpended balance of established development value of the relevant area attributable to each respectively of those interests shall be taken to be the following, that is to say—
  1104

  (a) in the case of the interest in fee simple, an amount equal to the reversionary development value of that interest less the amount, if any, by which any rental liability of that interest exceeds any rental increment thereof;

  (b) in the case of a tenancy in reversion, an amount equal to the reversionary development value of that tenancy less the aggregate of—

  (i) the reversionary development value of the interest in reversion immediately expectant upon the termination of that tenancy; and

  (ii) the amount, if any, by which any rental liability of that tenancy exceeds any rental increment thereof;

  (c) in the case of a tenancy other than a tenancy in reversion, the remainder, if any, of the said balance after the deduction of the aggregate of—

  (i) the reversionary development value of the interest in reversion immediately expectant upon the termination of that tenancy; and

  (ii) any rental liability of that tenancy.

  Interpretation
  6. In this Schedule—

  (a) the expression "tenancy" does not include an excepted interest;

  (b) any reference to an interest or tenancy in reversion does not include an interest or tenancy in reversion immediately expectant upon the termination of an excepted interest."—(Lord Mancroft.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Fifth Schedule [Special classes of land for which planning permission is to be included in compensation on compulsory acquisition]:
  LORD MANCROFT: The next two Amendments are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 97, line 13, leave out ("planning decision granting") and insert ("granting of").
  Page 97, line 17, leave out ("said planning decision") and insert ("granting of the planning permission in question").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Sixth Schedule [Enactments amended]:
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment merely preserves the present effect of Section 20 of the 1947 Act in relation to purchase notices. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 97, line 22, at end insert—
  ("1. In section twenty, in subsection (4), at the end there shall be added the words 'if Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954, had not been passed'.").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  11.30 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is also largely drafting. I beg to move
  Amendment moved—
  Page 97, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 23 on page 98 and insert—
  ("3. In the Third Schedule—

  (a) in paragraph 1, after the words "such building)" there shall be inserted the words "and of any other building in existence at a material date, being a building erected after the appointed day";

  (b) in paragraphs 2, 4 and 8, for the words" on the appointed day" there shall in each case be substituted the words "at a material date";

  (c) in paragraph 6, for the words "on the appointed day" there shall be substituted, in the first place where those words occur, the words "at a material date" and, in the second place where those words occur the words "on and at all times since the appointed day";

  (d) in paragraph 7, for the words "on the appointed day" in the first place where they occur there shall be substituted the words "at a material date", and after the said words in the second place where they occur there shall be inserted the words "or on the day thereafter when the buildings began to be so used";

  (e) after paragraph 8 there shall be added the following—

  "9. In this Schedule, the expression "at a material date" means at either of the following dates, that is to say—

  (a) the appointed day; or

  (b) the date by reference to which this Schedule falls to be applied in the particular case in question:

  Provided that sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph shall not apply in relation to any building, works or use of land in respect of which, whether before or after the date mentioned in that sub-paragraph, an enforcement notice served before that date has become or becomes effective.
  10. Where, after the appointed day, any buildings or works have been erected or constructed, or any use of land has been instituted, and any condition imposed under Part III of this Act limiting the period for which those buildings or works may be retained or that use may be continued is of effect in relation thereto, this Schedule shall not operate except as respects the period specified in that condition.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 98, line 40, after ("1954") insert ("and ironstone specified in an order in force under subsection (1) of the said section fifty-six").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 98, line 41, at end insert—
  ("(2A) Where, under subsection (2) of this section, contributions at the rate of twopence farthing per ton are payable by a lessee under a mining lease, a sum, computed in accordance with the provisions of the Third Schedule to this Act, may, notwithstanding anything in the lease, be deducted from payments by the lessee under the lease in accordance with the provisions of that Schedule or may be otherwise recovered by the lessee in accordance with those provisions:
  Provided that this subsection shall not apply—

  (a) to any mining lease made after the commencement of section fifty-six of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954;

  (b) to any mining lease made on or after the first day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty-one in the case of which the rate of contributions payable immediately before the commencement of the said section fifty-six was twopence farthing per ton by virtue of section six of this Act; or

  (c) to any mining lease made after the fifteenth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, and before the said first day of August which contained a provision expressly excluding the operation of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section six of this Act.")—(Lord Mancroft.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is also a drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 99, line 6, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
  ("(c) in paragraph 7 for the words 'paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section six' there shall be substituted the words 'subsection (2A) of section three', and for the words 'the said paragraph (b)' there shall be substituted the words 'the said subsection (2A)'.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Seventh Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
  LORD MANCROFT: Your Lordships will be profoundly relieved to hear that the last three Amendments on the Order Paper are all drafting. Before I actually move them, may I thank noble Lords who have stayed the course and given valuable assistance from both sides of the House in attempting to amend this difficult and technical Bill? I should particularly like to thank noble Lords

  1107
  opposite who have not had the advantage of professional help, because I know what a difficult task it is. I think noble Lords would wish me to extend a word of congratulation to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, on his first appearance in charge of a Committee stage of a Bill. I do not think any Bill could have been in more skilful or more sympathetic hands. I beg to move the Amendments.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 99, line 23, column 3, leave out ("and subsection (5)") and insert ("subsection (5), and in subsection (6) the words from 'or a' to 'section twenty of this Act' and the words from 'or as' to 'said section twenty'")
  Page 99, line 37, after ("(1)") insert ("and in subsection (2) the words from 'an order' to 'or containing'")
  Page 99, line 43, column 3, at end add ("and subsections (5) and (7)").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  LORD SILKIN: I am glad the noble Lord is finishing up this long and tiring discussion on a pleasing and, so far as I am concerned, hopeful note. I should like to join him in paying tribute to the noble and learned Viscount for the way in which he has dealt with the Amendments so far. He has pledged his
  1108
  fortune to a considerable extent, and we shall look forward with great interest to the result of his consideration. One thing I should like to say from personal experience—and I say it with all sincerity—is that I do know that when the noble and learned Viscount says he will consider a matter, that is not a mere form of words or an evasion. I know that he will, and I am hopeful that the result of the consideration will be satisfactory, at any rate to most of your Lordships.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to express my gratitude for what has been said by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, opposite, and add that it has been a great pleasure to me to receive such kindness and consideration from all quarters of the Committee. I hope to be of some little service to the House in the course of these debates.
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at twenty-six minutes to twelve o'clock midnight.